Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:54 pm
I didn't care for the film at all but I'd be very interested in reading Ian Christie's appraisal of it. Perhaps someone can scan and copy and paste this when the DVD/Blu is out?
Page 15 of 18
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:16 pm
What about the commentary by von Trier and Murray Smith - anyone listened to it on other editions? Any good?
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:04 pm
Is it too early to start arguing about whether it should be 24fps or 25fps?
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:19 pm
CC claims this is "director approved". To be honest the 25fps choice to shoot seems pretty odd to me, especially where CGI/color correction is involved, it must add costs. Is PAL still a consideration in Europe, or have broadcasts gone all digital? Does anybody know how it was screened at Cannes?
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:24 pm
How could it be 25fps when most of the region A players don't support 1080i/50? It will be slowed down to 24fps of course.
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:27 pm
I always wondered why this is never part of the packaging posts on the main page. I imagine it's a hassle blowing up the scan to read the print / possibly copyright issues. Always curious to read the essays for the discs I'll never buy though...Finch wrote:I didn't care for the film at all but I'd be very interested in reading Ian Christie's appraisal of it. Perhaps someone can scan and copy and paste this when the DVD/Blu is out?
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:12 pm
All the essays are posted on Criterion's website. Just check the product page for each film.Mr. Ned wrote:I always wondered why this is never part of the packaging posts on the main page. I imagine it's a hassle blowing up the scan to read the print / possibly copyright issues. Always curious to read the essays for the discs I'll never buy though...Finch wrote:I didn't care for the film at all but I'd be very interested in reading Ian Christie's appraisal of it. Perhaps someone can scan and copy and paste this when the DVD/Blu is out?
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:40 am
Good commentary. Smith keeps von Trier in check, and doesn't let the gaps fill up. Sometimes like an interview asking questions, sometimes commenting on the scene himself as well. Glad that von Trier wasn't alone on it.otis wrote:What about the commentary by von Trier and Murray Smith - anyone listened to it on other editions? Any good?
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:55 pm
Menu Art posted on Facebook.
Apologies if this should be in the "Artwork" thread.
Apologies if this should be in the "Artwork" thread.
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:24 pm
Dell? Cheap bastards... 
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:26 pm
I want this now.
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:36 pm
Ha! That makes it sound like you didn't already want it before. You're not fooling anyone!
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:17 pm
Slant weighs in on the Blu-Ray.
Image/Sound:
"It's very pretty" were the first words that left my girlfriend's mouth as Antichrist's credits rolled, and, indeed, on Blu-ray Lars von Trier's joke seems far less cruel, at least on the eyes. Between this and their release of Secret of the Grain, Criterion appears to be launching a veritable defense for the otherworldly clarity and glinting colors of high-def video; a few scenes suffer from obvious chroma-key flatness, but elsewhere it's as if we're inside the Red Camera, soaking in the lines of resolution. Even when the images blur, they retain an unnerving crispness. The sound seems to have been mastered a tad on the low side, but the uncompressed 5.1 surround effectively encases the viewer in falling acorns and feminine bleats.
Extras:
I'm torn. The hour-plus behind-the-scenes Antichrist documentary featured here offers invaluable production insight, but it also demystifies much of what makes the film so ineffably rancorous. Either way, it's nice to have the option of watching the thorough supplements here, even if Antichrist's principal photography seems to have gone smoother than that of von Trier's last three or four films combined. There's also a featurette covering the movie's controversial premiere at Cannes, a slew of interviews with von Trier, Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and Anthony Dod Mantle, and an intermittently fascinating director's commentary that reveals which of the film's images were drawn from dreams. Von Trier governs the glut of extras with an oddly relaxed, roly-poly, "What me worry?" demeanor.
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:39 pm
I suggest officially renaming this film Feminine Bleats immediately.
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:48 pm
I am very grateful for all these reviews.
I so _don't_ need to see this film. ;~}
I so _don't_ need to see this film. ;~}
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:53 pm
Then you also so don't need to post in this thread
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:28 pm
And this is worse than "I want this now" (found above in this same thread) -- how?domino harvey wrote:Then you also so don't need to post in this thread
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:47 pm
Because I wanted it. I didn't not want it. Duh.
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:49 pm
That's the only difference I could ascertain.mfunk9786 wrote:Because I wanted it. I didn't not want it. Duh.
(That -- and you are "under Matt's protection").
;~}
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:51 pm
Because while that post admittedly did not contribute much, at least that poster was not bragging about how they "so" don't want to see a film in said film's devoted thread-- this thread is already a nightmare of users bickering over whether enjoying the film is tantamount to falling for a prank or joke, it didn't really need another negative tack
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:54 pm
But in all seriousness, it's one thing to say you don't want to see a film in a "New Films" thread for some upcoming release, and another entirely to say you don't want to see a 1+ year old film in its Criterion release's thread. There's just no purpose in that post, and it accomplishes nothing for anyone.
In other words: what Dot Com Dom said.
In other words: what Dot Com Dom said.
Re: 542 Antichrist
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:14 am
But my post had the primary purpose of thanking people for providing useful links -- that these helped me decide I didn't want to see this film was a secondary point. Not sure where you got "bragging" from. I've never treated being squeamish (in films and otherwise) as a virtue (here or elsewhere).
In any event, I make a mild joke here about once every three years. I would think I have not exceeded my quota.
In any event, I make a mild joke here about once every three years. I would think I have not exceeded my quota.