Requiem for a Dream anybody?

this isn't one of those Kirk Cameron kind of movies is it?

this isn't one of those Kirk Cameron kind of movies is it?

Dammmm...that movie was FUBAR.

cant get those images outta my head....

iloveannie said:

Funny Games (the original Austrian movie) is something I can never watch again. That was way disturbing.

I've seen this movie in the summer on International Film Festival in Carlsbad.. I really can't see nothing special about this movie. Blood ejaculation, combination of rusty scissors with clitoris..Actually, it was quite boring. And when that fox shouted "Chaos reigns!" - The most overrated movie of this year.

zaza said:

I haven't seen it yet, but I don't understand how a "boring" movie can cause such an uproar when it premiered at Cannes.

sextonseven said:

I was expecting something really shocking but when I finally saw it, I was bored There are more shocking movies out there than the Antichrist, but I guess that it caused an uproar because it's a movie by famous director and the fact it was premiered at Cannes. For me it was normal movie with pretty good camera. Maybe I'm strange

zaza said:

With a name like zaza, I'd say you're strange.

errant said:

Myself and my wife watched it last night. So anyone on here point me in the right direction for an analytical critique of this movie? It'd be nice to know if it was plainly dealing with insanity or suggesting something else.

As for the "shocking" scenes. Okay they make you squirm but it was nice (odd choice of word Alan) to have mutilation in a movie that didn't involve torture for enjoyment: Hostel, I'm talking about you, you sick fuck.

I'll have to do an imdb search of the director as I found the presentation very good and would like to see what else he's done. Not quite a Del Toro but very good nonetheless.

It was also very refreshing to see a very plain woman that at times I found most unattractive. So many movies go for the baser values on how a woman should look.

I found the movie as a whole, not disturbing, original, interestingly shot, without glamour and animalistic with regards to sex and the human body. It has left me wondering whether it meant to imply other things with it's inclusion of occult.

For a movie that had me thinking, try Funny Games. That's just so lacking in humanity and has a wonderful way of breaking the illusion and then dragging you straight back in as though it had never happened. Toys with thriller conventions quite nicely too. Watch it and you'll see what I mean.

iloveannie said:

Funny Games (the original Austrian movie) is something I can never watch again. That was way disturbing.

Myself and my wife watched it last night. So anyone on here point me in the right direction for an analytical critique of this movie? It'd be nice to know if it was plainly dealing with insanity or suggesting something else.

As for the "shocking" scenes. Okay they make you squirm but it was nice (odd choice of word Alan) to have mutilation in a movie that didn't involve torture for enjoyment: Hostel, I'm talking about you, you sick fuck.

I'll have to do an imdb search of the director as I found the presentation very good and would like to see what else he's done. Not quite a Del Toro but very good nonetheless.

It was also very refreshing to see a very plain woman that at times I found most unattractive. So many movies go for the baser values on how a woman should look.

I found the movie as a whole, not disturbing, original, interestingly shot, without glamour and animalistic with regards to sex and the human body. It has left me wondering whether it meant to imply other things with it's inclusion of occult.

For a movie that had me thinking, try Funny Games. That's just so lacking in humanity and has a wonderful way of breaking the illusion and then dragging you straight back in as though it had never happened. Toys with thriller conventions quite nicely too. Watch it and you'll see what I mean.

I saw it. Amazing how someone with a gift for visuals can create something so simultaneously gorgeous and ghastly.

sextonseven said:

I ALMOST rented that one...but glad i didnt. I also have The Martyers(sp) on DVD but Im too afraid to watch.

I FINALLY saw this.

W.....T.....F!!!!!

I'm usually pretty good about interpreting movies. I'm not dumb. BUT what the hell!!!!!

I understood everything that was going on. I just didn't get the movie. It wasn't creepy just weird and strange.....and I like weird and strange. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

I totally didn't get the end. That's why I need to see it again.

sextonseven said:

SPOILER ALERT****SPOILER ALERT*****














Wasn't the woman writing a book on Gynocide? I think the women that were going up the hill at the end were all the women that were persecuted for being women. Willem Defoe's character set them free by killing his wife. That's all I could get from the movie. AND WHAT THE HELL DID THE MOVIE HAVE TO DO WITH THE ANTICHRIST?

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

MORE SPOILERS:


I knew the ending was in reference to all the books the wife was reading earlier. I should have paid more attention then.

I thought the title was a reference to the wife. All the evil things she did to her husband and it was later revealed that she saw her son approach the window while she was having sex, but still didn't do anything to stop him.

I thought antichrist referred to nature with it having no conscience. Or as the fox put it, "Chaos reigns."

iloveannie said:

Nature meaning Eden or just nature in general? Because they've been to Eden before (or at the very least, the wife has) and none of that crazy stuff happened. It was only after she allowed her son to die--as if her presence had altered the environment.

sextonseven said:

Wow this is getting deep. Good analysis from both of you. I had totally forgotten that the place where the cabin was, was named Eden.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

Nature having no conscience is a good interpretation, but I still think it all goes back to the wife somehow. It was after her death that things seemed to be righted.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

Nature having no conscience is a good interpretation, but I still think it all goes back to the wife somehow. It was after her death that things seemed to be righted.

sextonseven said:

Maybe. She was symbolic of evil through her cruelty perhaps but she let herself become that way. It was the environment that turned her. And let's not forget that she was suffering from depression. I also feel she was more complacent with regards her son's death as opposed to intentionally wishing him to die.
[Edited 11/18/09 6:23am]