by iwnit on November 8th, 2009
I already saw several movies by Lars von Trier and I would not avoid this one. It would just be better to know that the movie is considered to be an horror film, so you get an idea of what could expect you.
There is some information about the movie here (warning: spoiler):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_(film%29
How Should the U.S. Respond to the Gaza Crisis?
by Answerbag Staff on December 9th, 2009
| 1 person likes this
What Should Obama's Priority be After Inauguration?
by Answerbag Staff on December 9th, 2009
| 1 person likes this
Should Obama have Reversed U.S. Abortion Policy?
by Answerbag Staff on December 9th, 2009
| 1 person likes this
Does anyone feel that they have been saved by love?
by Baba 2 days ago
| 2 people like this
i have just started to cheer up after my long period of being depressed but now i feel guilty for being too happy how can i stop this guilt?
by wwww789 14 hours ago
| 1 person likes this
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Oh, it's a HORROR film, I'll certainly give you that! Unlike any horror film ever made. It fits absolutely no format, which makes it so frightening. What freaks me about about it... were the sex scenes real?
by Adz3r0 on November 8th, 2009
What other films has Lars von Trier done worth watching?
by Adz3r0 on November 8th, 2009
Adz3r0: "Props for the more violent scenes were provided by the company Soda ApS, and made in their workshop in Nørrebro, Copenhagen. Plaster casts were made of Willem Dafoe's leg as well as of the "porno doubles'" sexual organs. A plastic baby with authentic weight was made for the opening scene. A dead deer fetus was modeled after pictures found using Google Image Search, and a nylon stocking was used as caul. In the scene where Dafoe's character ejaculates blood it is the real "porno double's" penis that is seen, with fake blood being sprayed by the prop crew. The vagina prop was constructed with its inner parts detachable for easy preparation if several takes would be needed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist_(film%29
by iwnit on November 9th, 2009
Adz3r0: I liked those movies (but I could understand that not everyone is going to like them):
"Breaking the Waves' (1996, part one of the "Golden Heart" trilogy)
Idioterne / The Idiots (1998, part two of the "Golden Heart" trilogy)
Dancer in the Dark (2000, part three of the "Golden Heart" trilogy)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_von_Trier
by iwnit on November 9th, 2009
When you say "porny doubles" sexual organs, I imagine you're not referring to the shower scene. That had to be porn stand-ins, right? That handjob still has me traumatized.
by Adz3r0 on November 9th, 2009
Adz3r0: sorry if I cannot help more, but I have not seen the movie yet. Here an excerpt of an interview:
"Charlotte Gainsbourg embodies her role so audaciously that I can't even imagine another actress in the part, but I'm still curious why your original choice, Eva Green, didn't work out?
She would've worked out, but her agents were very much against the porn aspect of the film, and we were into strange negotiations where I had to say how many times I wanted to see a nipple. At a certain point, I found out that's not the way I can work. Then Charlotte came and was, as you said, a gift for the film."
http://www.ifc.com/news/2009/10/lars-von-trier.php?page=2
by iwnit on November 9th, 2009
No, that helps fine. Thank you for your answer.
It was a trippy film, but not one I'd care to see again.
by Adz3r0 on November 9th, 2009
Adz3r0: I just rated your question. I had some problems with my internet connection lately. No everything is fine again.
by iwnit on November 9th, 2009