criterionforum.org

Mr Finch wrote:I don't share Criterion's (and evidently some forum members') love for Von Trier. As far as I'm concerned, Border Radio, Armageddon, Howard's End, Ride With The Devil, Koko et al have got new company on the shitlist if Antichrist is confirmed.

I'm totally with you on this one, Mr. Finch. And while I get the pun involved in calling it a "gutsy" release, I'd rather see them release a bunch more Eddie Coyles and Downhill Racers than this silly film.

All my Von Trier discs are Euro imports, as the US releases don't add much, and just usually port over extras. I'll probably be keeping the UK disc of Antichrist. I don't know what else Criterion can add to it. It already has a very good standard in extras, I guess a booklet of course.

Anyone else think Criterion will skip over and make this one Spine # 666?

Mr Finch wrote:I don't share Criterion's (and evidently some forum members') love for Von Trier. As far as I'm concerned, Border Radio, Armageddon, Howard's End, Ride With The Devil, Koko et al have got new company on the shitlist if Antichrist is confirmed.

I'm ambivalent on the issue of LVT (and I've yet to see Antichrist), but I find the continuing trend disturbing. I know Criterion define themselves as "a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films" but how the hell do you conclude a film released less than a year ago is "important"? How does one have the perspective after so short a time to declare than such a film - any film - has earned its rightful place in the pantheon? I know the driving force is economic and I understand that. Still, with so many worthy films from earlier eras still not represented on DVD or BD in decent transfers, why commit to films that five years from now may look like anything but "important" in retrospect? And recent release announcements lead one to believe we'll see more of this, not less.

Not this again ](*,)

Note: I found Antichrist to be a terrible film, that while pretty is empty and poorly written. Also I find the whole mission statement concern as silly as LVT.
While it may not be important in the same sense as say The Seventh Seal. It did manage to make an uproar on the festival circuit and has some minor technological advances. At the very least it is notorious which is important in its own sense.

Still, with so many worthy films from earlier eras still not represented on DVD or BD in decent transfers, why commit to films that five years from now may look like anything but "important" in retrospect?

Especially if Armond white is supplying the liner notes.

Right before an inevitable thread split, let me add two or three cents.

I'm a fan of Von Trier's work all the way through Dogville. Manderlay...was something of a carboned copy of Dogville...and the idea didn't work the second time around, not to mention that the politics became a little overly and unnecessarily loud. So it doesn't work...or at least it doesn't work as well as his earlier movies.

Antichrist is something of a considerable improvement over Manderly...but it is something of a wreak of a movie for Von Trier. That doesn't stop it from being interesting to watch, and it has some individual powerful scenes.

So at this point in his career, I think just about anything Von Trier makes (at least until we see how Melancholia turns out) at the moment is sufficient to make the movie "important."

Let's pause here and pick up the debate on Criterion's mission statement never

Andrew, I want to show you something.

What is it? Ew, is that woman being crapped on?

Happy birthday. It's fucking German Schizer porn. All right, dude? It's fucking hot, right, yo?

No, dude, what the fuck is wrong with you, yo?

Nothing. You wouldn't say that if you lived in Europe. I mean, these Europeans are much more broadminded than these uptight Americans. Shit's huge in Germany.

Yeah, well, we're not in Europe and I don't like that kind of stuff.

Yeah, I know, that's 'cause you're a fag.

--World's Greatest Dad, Bobcat Goldthwait

arsonfilms wrote:While I don't think anyone can say they "enjoyed" Antichrist...

I thoroughly enjoyed Antichrist, think it is Trier's best film to date by far. A riotous roll-coaster, extreme arthouse take on the 'alone in a cabin in the woods' horror genre staple. Hilarious that it was set in Seattle -- can easily see those two characters as my next door neighbors! What is Trier's obsession with Washington state anyway? It's freaky knowing that he's never even been here before, yet he's totally nailed the self-absorbed 'character' of Seattle with Antichrist. So so happy Criterion is releasing this...

manicsounds wrote:The European Bluray is excellent. It can easily be a demo disc, and if you show this to anyone who doesn't have a bluray player yet, they will probably be too horrified to buy one now.

Which one are you talking about? It has been released in at least five different countries in Europe.
UK release has some pretty nasty compression/aliasing artifacts. I'm not sure but the Danish/Scandinavian disc should be the same.
German and French releases have better video quality, but no English subtitles for (non-English) bonus features.
Polish released is the only one that is slowed down to 23.976fps @ 1080p, has good video quality, but few (Polish language) bonus features.
Therefore, I'd say, there isn't a release that I would buy at the moment.

Lars Von Trier is probably one of my favorite directors period. Breaking the Waves still remains one of the most powerful films I have ever seen. As a filmmaker, I am constantly studying his work. The craft in his films is impeccable, regardless of one's taste in subject matter. You may not care for the offensive subject matter, but Antichrist is 'technically' an amazing film.

Along with Che, this is the only IFC joint that probably deserves a place in the collection. Having said that, as with Che, it is also completely pointless, as the Blu is already available elsewhere for a significantly lower price point.

well, it's been in my queue since it showed up available for instant viewing, but the announcement got me to go ahead and push play an the roku - but i'm kind of wishing I could have those two hours back.

I don't know why I keep watching, but i'm just so over Lars and his "I am the Greatest Director in the World" schtick. He's like the worst emo art school borderline personality disorder figure in film currently making this nihilistic claptrap masquerading as film. I'm sorry, but he's a child only interested in shocking for the sake of shocking, and completely wastes what bits of talent he does have. The Prologue was indeed magnificent movie making, but then it all falls apart rather quickly. He's got just enough talent to be dangerous. I wasn't appalled, repulsed, or even bored, mostly just annoyed by it all. I really don't understand why the world continues to pander to his puerile attempts to convince himself of his own brilliance. He's really more akin to a South Park character in all his smug self satisfied depressive glory. The onion bit posted earlier was eminently more entertaining, and spot on in its take down of the LVT phenomenon. I really hoped this would bring me around after the horrid Manderlay, but no such luck.

LVT and Vincent Gallo should start a bowling team or something.

jbeall wrote:

Mr Finch wrote:I don't share Criterion's (and evidently some forum members') love for Von Trier. As far as I'm concerned, Border Radio, Armageddon, Howard's End, Ride With The Devil, Koko et al have got new company on the shitlist if Antichrist is confirmed.

I'm totally with you on this one, Mr. Finch. And while I get the pun involved in calling it a "gutsy" release, I'd rather see them release a bunch more Eddie Coyles and Downhill Racers than this silly film.

=D> Amen.

I thought the opening sequence was pretty unremarkable and silly and perhaps the weakest part of the film. All I could hear in my head was Eric Clapton's "Tears in Heaven" which made it even funnier.

The opening is definitely what set the, very silly, mood for me. You can't make some of those cuts without causing some immature laughter.

Galen Young wrote:

arsonfilms wrote:While I don't think anyone can say they "enjoyed" Antichrist...

I thoroughly enjoyed Antichrist, think it is Trier's best film to date by far. A riotous roll-coaster, extreme arthouse take on the 'alone in a cabin in the woods' horror genre staple. Hilarious that it was set in Seattle -- can easily see those two characters as my next door neighbors! What is Trier's obsession with Washington state anyway? It's freaky knowing that he's never even been here before, yet he's totally nailed the self-absorbed 'character' of Seattle with Antichrist. So so happy Criterion is releasing this...

As many Scandinavians, he is a huge fan of Twin Peaks!

MyNameCriterionForum wrote:I thought the opening sequence was pretty unremarkable and silly and perhaps the weakest part of the film. All I could hear in my head was Eric Clapton's "Tears in Heaven" which made it even funnier.

so wrong. but very funny...thanks for that one

This thread and the politics thread are virtually indistinguishable save the different proper nouns.

Everyone has a "Woo! Someone finally said it!" attitude about saying you dislike Lars Von Trier. People have been with him or against him for a long time, get over yourselves. If you're not going to talk about the film, nobody cares whether or not HistoryProf thinks that Von Trier's a good filmmaker.

I think he's one of the best filmmakers alive who doesn't fly by airplane.

mfunk9786 wrote:Everyone has a "Woo! Someone finally said it!" attitude about saying you dislike Lars Von Trier. People have been with him or against him for a long time, get over yourselves. If you're not going to talk about the film, nobody cares whether or not HistoryProf thinks that Von Trier's a good filmmaker.

This thread has basically become a victim of prophecy

mfunk9786 wrote:Everyone has a "Woo! Someone finally said it!" attitude about saying you dislike Lars Von Trier. People have been with him or against him for a long time, get over yourselves. If you're not going to talk about the film, nobody cares whether or not HistoryProf thinks that Von Trier's a good filmmaker.

probably not...but that's kind of why places like this exist. I was merely explaining that I went in HOPING to like this movie, and found it incredibly silly. I loved Breaking the Waves, but not much since, and I thought that this would be the one that would turn me around. But alas, it is just not a good film. That's my opinion. And what I think of the director is entirely relevant to that opinion, so this would be the place to express that opinion - one I've never uttered a word about here or anywhere else before this. So now I'm on record and needn't revisit any future LVT threads ever again, so no worries.


But just because a lot of people disliked this movie doesn't make those who loved it arbiters of what's okay to say in the thread about it. People have been hifalutin LVT fans for a long time, get over yourselves. Expressing an opinion about a future Criterion release on, gasp, criterionforum.org, is hardly cause for lashing out just because you don't agree with the sentiment.

New forum rule: No one is allowed to post about anything but ICP