They do very rarely show P/S versions of scope films - maybe a handful of times a year - and they shouldn't (and then only when nothing else is available). They frankly shouldn't. But it does happen unfortunately.
Note to Seanflynn and anyone interested in seeing "Antichrist" on VOD...
I do believe it is being shown in the proper dimensions. The letterboxing takes up almost two thirds of the screen. It is much longer than tall.
I will write some kind of review for the film later. I am going to let it marinate. Oh, I can tell you right now I did not like it but I need to figure out how much I did not like it. I need to ponder on how much its visual mastery and Charlotte Gainbourg's performance make up for its silliness, tediousness, grossness, obviousness, etc. I feel this is a movie I would have liked more if I saw it in the theatre and its visuals could have completely overtaken me. Its flaws may have not been in the forefront if that had been the case.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 27160 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
I am still trying to work my way up to seeing it. I have nothing against Lars von Trier. I have found his films interesting in the past. But, I don't know about this. I am feeling very squeamish about it. Violence is my biggest film turn off. I mean, I am someone who finds Tarantino films tough to watch because of the violence.
I don't know.... the last 30 mintues seem like something I am not sure I want to experience.
I think I may join Babypook in being not a true film lover now.
People on this board seem far more eager to write this one off than those on CF, AD, TLC or YMDb. Keep hiding that critical spirit, folks
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
Originally posted by puxzkkx: People on this board seem far more eager to write this one off than those on CF, AD, TLC or YMDb. Keep hiding that critical spirit, folks
Maybe you would be happier just posting on those sites where the critical spirit is up to your standards ...
Originally posted by puxzkkx: People on this board seem far more eager to write this one off than those on CF, AD, TLC or YMDb. Keep hiding that critical spirit, folks
Just when people thought you could not get more obnoxious...
Posts: 27160 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
I don't think its as bad as people are saying it is. It definitely succeeds at creating terror and an uncomfortable atmosphere. It does perhaps go a bit too far (Oh my!) in the last 30 minutes, but if you enjoy screaming and/or being scared or horrified...its' worth seeing. Some elements worked, others didn't, but in the end I appreciate the fact that Lars von Trier took a risk with this project, which is why I gave it the grade: B.
For Your Grammy Consideration: Kanye West for "Heartless" and 808's & Heartbreak Adele for "Hometown Glory" Taylor Swift for "You Belong With Me" & Fearless Maxwell for "Pretty Wings" & BLACKsummer'snight Kings of Leon for "Use Somebody" The Cast of GLEE for "Don't Stop Believin' " Mariah Carey for "Obsessed"
Originally posted by 24fanatic: I don't think its as bad as people are saying it is. It definitely succeeds at creating terror and an uncomfortable atmosphere. It does perhaps go a bit too far (Oh my!) in the last 30 minutes, but if you enjoy screaming and/or being scared or horrified...its' worth seeing. Some elements worked, others didn't, but in the end I appreciate the fact that Lars von Trier took a risk with this project, which is why I gave it the grade: B.
As disgusting as the last thirty minutes were at least they were interesting... even if overheated and ridiculous. It was the dull hour before that that was even more of an endurance test. Even with the occasional bit of evocative horror imagery and sex it was a slog.
Posts: 27160 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
If this site is an indication, then VOD has had something of a breathrough.
For virtually no money spent on prints and marketing, IFC is likely making a nice profit on Antichrist, keeping a much higher share of the receipts from the cable companies than they do from theatres, and making people more aware of this venue for the future.
Within five years, films like Last Station, An Education, maybe even Precious will be primarily seen this way.
Originally posted by seanflynn: If this site is an indication, then VOD has had something of a breathrough.
For virtually no money spent on prints and marketing, IFC is likely making a nice profit on Antichrist, keeping a much higher share of the receipts from the cable companies than they do from theatres, and making people more aware of this venue for the future.
Within five years, films like Last Station, An Education, maybe even Precious will be primarily seen this way.
I'm beginning to wonder when the time will come for the Academy to modify rules in order to include such films. I'm sure such a day is on its way.
---- OSCAR FYC: Best Picture - "Up" Best Actor - Michael Stuhlbarg, "A Serious Man" Best Actress - Saoirse Ronan, "Lovely Bones" Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, "Basterds" Best Original Screenplay - "Up"
Posts: 1924 | Location: Right behind you. | Registered: December 07, 2007
Apparently (although I could be reading the rules wrong) as long as the US VOD starts anytime after the day of the LA theatrical premiere, it is eligible.
The problem, if that is true, won't be so much the Academy, but that virtually every theatre in the US refuses to play these films, and having Academy members adjust to films basically not playing in theatres will be dicey.
Also, at some point, cable movies might just premiere in a theatre to become eligible (not sure why they haven't figured this out). Had Grey Gardens played at the Sunset 5 for a week just before HBO premiered it, again, as I read the rules, it would have been eligible.
(The reason to stop this though is a contractual one - the guilds have different, lower paying minimums for TV/cable than theatrical films, so HBO would have to go back and pay most of the crew and possibly others more money after the fact.)
Originally posted by puxzkkx: People on this board seem far more eager to write this one off than those on CF, AD, TLC or YMDb. Keep hiding that critical spirit, folks
Maybe you would be happier just posting on those sites where the critical spirit is up to your standards ...
Yeah, one does get tired of wading around the kiddie pool after a while...
"Notorious was nice, but it’s not in the color purple range" "Angels and Demons may get nominated for cinematography the imagery was profound" "District Nine will definitely win for best foreign film it made money and everyone loved it" ~ 8movies
Posts: 2714 | Location: nz | Registered: January 12, 2009
Though not perhaps achieving the greatness of Breaking the Waves or Dogville, this film has greatness in it. I am incapable of fully reacting after a first viewing, but this film was incredibly different from what all the hype was about.
I've usually thought of von Trier's cinematic influences being classical - Murnau, Borzage, even John Ford a bit. But even before the final dedication came on, I was reminded of Tarkovsky as well as Malick (in terms of nature's role in psychology), but here also of Sokurov, who normally I regard as sui generis.
Poor Willem Dafoe - equally as strong as Gainsbourg, yet as usual in a romance, he doesn't get noticed.
I'll try to expound further. I doubt many will go as far as I do, which is fine, no judgment necessary either way. But in an era of cinematic poverty, I feel to have been blessed to have seen this.
(Note to Babypook and others who cringe at animal damage scenes - not a good film for you).
Originally posted by seanflynn: Initial response -
Though not perhaps achieving the greatness of Breaking the Waves or Dogville, this film has greatness in it. I am incapable of fully reacting after a first viewing, but this film was incredibly different from what all the hype was about.
I've usually thought of von Trier's cinematic influences being classical - Murnau, Borzage, even John Ford a bit. But even before the final dedication came on, I was reminded of Tarkovsky as well as Malick (in terms of nature's role in psychology), but here also of Sokurov, who normally I regard as sui generis.
Poor Willem Dafoe - equally as strong as Gainsbourg, yet as usual in a romance, he doesn't get noticed.
I'll try to expound further. I doubt many will go as far as I do, which is fine, no judgment necessary either way. But in an era of cinematic poverty, I feel to have been blessed to have seen this.
(Note to Babypook and others who cringe at animal damage scenes - not a good film for you).
And an innocent young child falling in slow-motion imagery to his death? O joy. Von Trier can shove his symbolisms up his self-celebratory ass.
Posts: 13907 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
I found absolutely nothing self-celebratory about this film. It was for me the least egocentric of his films. He made it at the tag end of a debilitating depression, and it shows, yet at the end, in a weird way, I sensed that he had overcome in, in part by facing his frailties.
I'd rather watch Cronenberg's The Brood over again. He was overcoming a nasty divorce where child custody was first and foremost. At least he didnt try to hide behind any pretenses. von Trier can get his therapy without me endorsing this film. I have, no sympathy for him.
Posts: 13907 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
