31 Days of Halloween

That's one I've never actually seen ^^^

That's why he chose it.

Day Two: Antichrist



Antichrist is a movie that's been hyped to me since 2009 from two very different groups. On one hand was hardcore fans of art cinema, who praised this film for it's bold vision, craftsmanship, and conviction (though it certainly has its detractors). On the other hand was teens (I was around fifteen) interested in really extreme movies, and Antichrist had a reputation for some really extreme depravity. "I heard there's a scene where blank happens" was definitely something heard. In spite of all this, it's taken me a long time to actually see the film. A big part of this is the main way I saw movies from age 14-19 was the library, and the film's rather extreme violence made it difficult to attain through them. However even after I get Netflix, I still waited about a year and a half to actually watch this. Why? Well, at the time I did have a lot of other stuff to watch (as well as priorities like school, work, and loved ones), but it is possible I was slightly intimidated by Antichrist. Not so much by the violence, which I was pretty sure I could handle, but by the fact that I knew this would be challenging on an emotional and intellectual effort. Lars Von Trier's films aren't known to be "easy viewing", and I didn't want to go into this thing casually.

The film revolves around a married couple, (played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg), known only as He and She, whose child is killed in an accident. She is plagued with guilt and depression. He, a psychiatrist, wishes to help her overcome these feelings and opts to take her to a cabin in the woods where she can face her fears head on. That plot description isn't really common, but one could picture a "normal" movie being made about such things. Antichrist is anything but normal. Von Trier gives this film a very stylized look from the getgo, with very unique cinematography, some really surreal visuals, and use of classical music. The style is mesmerizing to the point of being hypnotic. While the film is certainly meant to be an exploration of themes regarding religion, misogyny, and depression, I'm not really sure what the end goal is. Perhaps there isn't really an end goal, and Von Trier instead wishes to merely express the evil and inhumanity that resides within. Or maybe the film does have something more specific to say. I'm not really sure; this is the kind of film I'll need more than one viewing to discuss on an intellectual level.

What I can say indefinitely is that the film worked for me on a visceral level. As I said earlier, Von Trier's style is hypnotic and I found myself sucked in immediately. The two crucial moments of violence do live up to their unforgettable reputation, but the film's success runs deeper than that. The imagery of nature is very effective and while this isn't your typical horror film, the dread built and sustained is certainly appropriate to the genre. Perhaps what impressed me most though were the performances from Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, which are fantastic. Gainsbourg especially needs to go to some really dark and extreme places all while keeping her character grounded.

So what can I say about Antichrist? Well, I did like it a lot. The style and performances really carry this, but I'm not sure what to make of it on an intellectual or emotional level. I know I liked it, but I can't say much about it other than that it's very bizarre but really good. I wish I could add something more insightful to the discussion, but at this point, I really can't. It is for that reason I can't label Antichrist a great movie, at least not yet. Who knows what rewatches might bring though.

B+

Yeah, I actually enjoyed Antichrist for the reasons you mentioned. Yes, the infamous scenes are what everyone remembers about it, but this was actually my first Von Trier film and I was highly impressed by his visual style. I think he had better cinematography in Melancholia, but Antichrist featured some great stuff including a lot of interesting toying with frame rates and shutter speeds that worked really well. I also felt that, unlike Nymphomaniac, the gratuitousness of this film was justified and worked within the context of the story because it highlighted her descent into complete depravity. But yeah, not a movie I'm crazy about revisiting again anytime soon, but I agree with your points on the film and I enjoyed it as well. I've criticized Von Trier for lately (essentially since 1996's Breaking the Waves) relying on the same main theme/idea of "female protagonist put through the fucking ringer for 2+ hours" for nearly all of his films since, but Antichrist was different and I enjoyed that break. He's talented behind the camera, though I don't think he's nearly as clever as he thinks he is in terms of his thematic material and plot points, and certainly in his characterization. But still, I'm up for Von Trier returning to horror again at some point.

31 DAYS OF HALLOWEEN!
DAY TWO: EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978)


Faye Dunaway and a "young" Tommy Lee Jones in Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)

Pop quiz, SnoBorderZero ! Name the movie John Carpenter wrote before directing Halloween (1978). Pop quiz, PG Cooper ! Name the movie Irvin Kershner directed before making Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980). The answer to both questions is Eyes of Laura Mars (1978). Inspired by the works of Mario Bava and Dario Argento, Eyes of Laura Mars is an American interpretation of the Italian's giallo genre. Basically - an old-fashioned murder mystery combined with 1960's New Wave sexuality and 1970's slasher horror.

The movie follows the story of Laura Mars (Faye Dunaway), a New York fashion photographer who likes to depicts sex and violence in her work, and whose life is turned upside down when a serial killer uses her pictures as inspiration for his murders. To make matters worse, whenever there's a new victim, she gets visions of their death from the killer's point-of-view.

Basically - this was John Carpenter experimenting with the POV shots that he would later use in Halloween. Even though Irvin Kershner was directing, Carpenter was still able to test the concept in some shape or form. And this is really what makes Eyes of Laura Mars an interesting movie - it's visually fun to watch. The story and characters are run-of-the-mill - apparently ruined by the meddling of notorious producer Jon Peters - but Kershner's eye for cinematography and Carpenter's storytelling devices elevate what could have been a nonsensical shooting script. There's also the added bonus of a "young" Tommy Lee Jones as the detective who's trying to catch killer while also romancing the leading lady. So if you ever get the chance, check out Eyes of Laura Mars. It's worth watching at least once.

C says Doomsday

Never even heard of this.

31 DAYS OF HALLOWEEN!
DAY THREE: MY LITTLE EYE (2002)



All the way back in 2002 a little horror movie about young people being murdered on an Internet reality show was released. It was considered VERY high-concept at the time, but now, it's almost laughable. Especially since Halloween Resurrection used the same exact plotline. If the last 13 years have taught us anything about Internet viewership it's that most people don't watch videos longer than 90 seconds. Even in porn sites most people skip to the good parts. So the whole idea of an Internet reality show seems silly - and even more silly is that a group of young people would agree to star in one. You're better off on a reality show that's actually on TV. Now all this would be forgivable if the movie played out like an actual movie - like Halloween Resurrection - but it was obviously inspired by The Blair Witch Project and went for the whole found footage concept. In that regard, you can give the movie credit for being an early adopter, but that isn't enough to save it from being mostly boring and forgettable. The ONLY thing that makes it worth watching is Bradley Cooper as the guy who has a really good sex scene with model-turned-actress Jennifer Sky. On second thought, you don't even have to watch the movie to watch that scene. Just Google it.

D says Doomsday

Outside of It, everything Neverending has reviewed is something I've never heard of.

You're telling me you haven't seen Academy Award winning actor, Jared Leto, in Urban Legend? Or 4-time Academy Award nominee, Bradley Cooper, have sex in My Little Eye? OR a YOUNG Tommy Lee Jones in Eyes of Laura Mars? What are they teaching you in film school? 

"REVIEWS" FROM THE VAULT

DRESSED TO KILL (1980)



A bored housewife, played by Angie Dickinson, has a one-night-stand with a stranger and is then murdered in an elevator by a deranged woman with a barber’s razor. The prime suspect is an escort who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. She’s played by Nancy Allen of Robocop fame. But the housewife’s son (Keith Gordon) believes her innocence and follows her around since her life is now in danger for being a witness. He figures he can use her to catch the real killer. Meanwhile, the housewife’s psychiatrist, played by Michael Caine, suspects that one of his patients is the murderer. Director Brian De Palma is in his comfort zone in this erotic thriller using Hitchcockian inspirations. If you've enjoyed some of his other films, this one is worth checking out.

Day Five: Faust (1926)



F.W. Murnau really was a titan who was well ahead of his time. Faust, the story of a man who sells his soul to the devil, is one of his most acclaimed works and its easy to see why. Visually, this thing is an absolute masterpiece. The German expressionist sets look better than ever and such a style lends itself perfectly to a story of Hell and Satan. Murnau's depictions of the Devil and his various abilities are dark, simplistic, and quite horrifying. Additionally, the special effects used to bring all of this to life are highly impressive, even for today's standards. From the super imposition of images, to smoke effects, to transformation sequences, everything looks excellent. The cinematography is brilliant, both in how the camera moves around the world, the various angles, and Murnau's deliberate use of lights and shades. The film also has great costumes, make-up, and generally the production values are quite high.

On a technical stand point, this is damn near perfect, and I would place it alongside Metropolis without hesitation. The film also succeeds as a story, but it is a bit shakier in this area. In particular a section of the film devoted to Faust trying to woo a lady and the role the devil plays in that are not terribly interesting I also think the film's ending runs counter to its themes. Having said that, I do give the film massive respect for being such a dark rumination on the nature of humanity. Faust is initially presented to be a noble and good man, but it does not take much for him to be tempted into evil and lured further away from his originally positive goals. In this respect, the love story element ends up being worth it as it leads to some interesting and tragic dynamics. Even the seemingly out of place happy ending takes a new meaning when looked at more cynically.

Faust has some pretty serious problems which would pull any modern film done much more. But considering what a landmark title this was, it's hard to complain too much. Visually, this is a perfect film and while its narrative is flawed, its dark themes and content do really resonate in a big way.

A