Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/20/2009 1:03:08 PM   
Loric


Posts: 43
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

HOLD ON THERE...LET US NOT BE BRINGING IN ANY COMMERCIAL INTEREST INTO HIS CRITIQUE. Does 'being paid' make it any less viable, what he believes. Does the paycheck by his employer, infulence what he is being paid to write, does it have any baring on the issue at hand?


his opinion would be valid IF he had seen the movie.  by stating an opinion on something that he hasn't seen he just shows that he's a moron.  it would be like anyone else having an opinion about something they don't know about.  he got paid for an opinion on something that he knows zilch about..doesn't that seem a bit odd to anyone or is it just Me?

(in reply to ienigma777)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/20/2009 1:06:46 PM   
TurboJugend


Posts: 481
Joined: 6/15/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Well, a move that was very popular ...hyped for children..."Starship Troopers'....for children.


This is Darcy

As I have countered your claim before, Starship Troopers was not hyped or aimed at children.
In the UK is was an 18 cert.  Definately not for children.

Subsequent cartoons and follow ups were different.


the only thing I heard about it was the worries about it nationalistic content ..not really about the movie itself

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/20/2009 7:51:42 PM   
Hawkwindblues


Posts: 183
Joined: 6/26/2009
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline 		One thing i want to add concerning movie critic:

As i studied movie and theatre science it was a well known amusement to critic a movie you haven't seen
only based on critics you have read about it and your general knowledge about the director and actors in the movie.



< Message edited by Hawkwindblues -- 7/20/2009 7:52:18 PM >

_____________________________

After 10 years with the handle ZenDragoness it is time for a change.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/20/2009 10:25:01 PM   
HatesParisHilton


Posts: 3513
Joined: 12/27/2006
Status: offline 		"It does sound odd that they would be subsidizing a horror flick. There are enough of them out there as is that don't need handouts. Why couldn't he get funding from normal investors if it was thought to be a viable picture?"

This statement and question is valid of you have EVER attempted to make even a SHORT film, and done so in various countries as investment in films ranges from country to country and i fact, genre to genre.  even Documentary to non-docco.  If you have not taken the DAYS it takes to do the homework required to even BEGIN the acquisition of funding, then frankly, like ienigma, you really don't have anywhere NEAR enough "hands on" experience to make that post.

Now before either you or eye-no-enigma wanna talk crap about this some more?

You need to kno the differences between grants, funding streams (sorry, we can all see eye-no has NO idea of what a funding stream vs. a grant is) versus casual investment from the basis of a prospectus provided to potential investors, so "silent investors" to even the amount of $$ required to create the materials NEEDED to have embedded in a prospectus to SHO to an investor.

By the way, I have MORE THAN 2 HOURS OF READING in pdf's from FUNDING AGENCIES that you both ca offer to read (I'll send threm to you) before either of you comment on this subject any more.

Because if you aren't willing to spend 2 hours reading about what you both are prattling about?

you don't get to prattle about it.

period.

Talk about what ANYONE can say, and say fairly:  Lars has been a pretentious cockless weasel who'd rather fuck himself than get a decent root from the best of partners since right before Dog-whatzit (which SUCKED, especially with the wannabe Ingmar Bergman crap), and hasn't had any balls since The Kingdom (aka "Geister") which STARTED his career and was - in fact - about evil supernatural shennanigans.
\
Oh, wait; maybe neither of you have SEEN Geister.

In which case, you need to shut the fuck up right there until you HAVE.

Geister is a three part  miniseries.  We all know "some people" talking shit about comics" without having done any have seen more hours of "Heroes" than that, so no biggie.

_____________________________

I am (now) "Hiltie", hear me ROARRRRR! And have a cuffy cake, they're nice.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/20/2009 10:27:53 PM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

It does sound odd that they would be subsidizing a horror flick. There are enough of them out there as is that don't need handouts. Why couldn't he get funding from normal investors if it was thought to be a viable picture?


My guess is that the "subsidizing" would be in tax breaks to film in that country.


_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/20/2009 10:40:52 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		Umm, it appears that my post 8 is causing confusion. That whole post is nearly entirely a lie from beginning to end. I intended it as a joke and a parody. The only thing about it that is not a lie is my statement that I did not see the movie either. I thought that the line about the Chronos 10 landing on the Moon in 1959 was a dead give-away. (Aldrin and Armstrong landed on the moon in the Apollo 11 in 1969.)
 
I do not know that the movie Antichrist is a horror flick. People getting indignant about it being a horror flick and other people getting indignant about their posts are escalating a non-issue.
 
I hope this post extinguishes the not intended flame war.
 
 

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/20/2009 10:42:18 PM   
HatesParisHilton


Posts: 3513
Joined: 12/27/2006
Status: offline 		"My guess is that the "subsidizing" would be in tax breaks to film in that country. "

Yes, but here in Oz, that comes and goes.  It's a bit "back" now, which is why Green Lantern is filming here.

and other films.

until the tax offsets were re-introduced, well...

Peter Garrett had to come onto tax-payer funded TV here and make some promises.

at tax-payer expense.

and offense.

until the tax offsets were re-introduced.

oh, and regarding "viable horror films?"

if Des knew about that, Des would know how much $$$ the Saw franchise has made from Box office ALONE (leaving DVD and d'load NET profits out of it, and if Des or eye-no-get-it don't know the difference between gross profit and net in films and horror films, then again, move to a new thread)

Saw was an AUSTRALIAN project.  EVERY innvestment consortium here was approached, al were so ROCK STUPID as to turn Saw down.

Turn down a horror franchise that has, from box-office (less than ancillary, these days) made more than $12 for every $1 invested, and most often YANK films FAIL at that.

by the way, unless Des or Eye-no-talk-about-what-eye-know knows what ANCILLARY profit (and product, and what exploitation of ancillary as per codeciles in WARNER BROTHERS CONTRACTS) means?

you don't know enough to comment here, SORRY.

_____________________________

I am (now) "Hiltie", hear me ROARRRRR! And have a cuffy cake, they're nice.

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 1:12:55 AM   
DemonKia


Posts: 5521
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Chico, Nor-Cali
Status: offline 		FR, after read thru

Thanks, Darcy, for bringing this flick to my attention. Von Trier is a director who's films I look for -- didn't care much for Dancer In The Dark, tho' it was innovative, but I loved Dogville . . . . & this one looks interesting, a rather thoughtful (for the genre) horror flick with oodles of artiness -- works for me . . . ..

Dafoe has a talent for picking controversial projects . . . .. &, yum, lots of naked Dafoe is also a winner for me . . . . *leering smirk*

Last Temptation was a bit of a Waterloo for US fundamentalist Christians, teaching them that making a big fuss can actually boost attendance to movies / events / etc that they find objectionable . .. . . Not saying there aren't those still objecting, but there are tons of people who will specifically go see something that the fundies push to suppress & that seems to surprise the fundies, I think . .. . .

& yeah, as for the 'reviewer' -- has the guy not watched horror films in the last coupla decades? . . . . *shakes head* . .. . That last Hostel flick was way more gruesome & fucked up than anything this Antichrist has on offer, so the carrying on just sounds totally ignorant of the genre . . . . . Leaving those of us who are somewhat genre-savvy in amused wonderment at yet another non-genre-savvy critic displaying woeful stupidity on several levels . . . . .

_____________________________

Snarko ergo sum.



The Verbossinator

(in reply to HatesParisHilton)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 1:36:58 AM   
Loki45


Posts: 2100
Joined: 5/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Yet another 'art' critic demonstrating that he is full of shit.


That reminds me of when Joel Siegel walked out of and later gave a 'full review' of Clerks II, from Kevin Smith. Of course Smith called him out on it on more than one show and Siegel went on to emphasize in his 'review' that he did not actually watch the entire movie.


_____________________________

"'Till the roof comes off, 'till the lights go out
'Till my legs give out, can't shut my mouth."

(in reply to Aneirin)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 2:43:54 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline 		This is Darcy

As usual, HPH makes a valid point. Speaking as someone who knows a fair bit about the hassle required to make a movie (I have friends in the industry, one of whom is an actor/write/director/producer who I scored a movie for, and I even looked into setting up a production company once), and even more about the horror genre, it makes perfect sense to chase whatever grants, funding, investments you can (whilst taking note of what conditions may be attached, such as loss of 'final cut' or being shafted on returns).

Re movies themselves, I've seen the original Kingdom and loved it! I even thought that given the limitations of US television that Stephen King's 'reimagining' of it as Kingdom Hospital worked quite well.

There's also the reality that a franchise like SAW, which can be shot for a relatively small budget, can make a modest return at the box office (and then via DVD) and still make a healty product, ensuring that, as we speak, SAW VI is waiting to hit theatres this Halloween, and the next three in the series are being prepped.

HPH's comment about Hart not being genre-savvy is spot on, though. Though I haven't seen Antichrist, I know genre savvy people who have seen advance / festival screenings and have commented that while the film is definitely dark and surreal, there's nothing on offer that hasn't been done before.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to Loki45)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 9:51:22 AM   
ienigma777


Posts: 283
Joined: 2/20/2009
Status: offline 		Not a bit odd to me.....Moron Critic???, I disagree; this joker has made a name for himself, he works at the behest of his employer, whoever that may be at the time. Now, the film is the most talked about film in ages at the Cannes Film Festival....strike you odd?

Without this hype, the film would be delegated to the commonplace of just another horror flick.....but...the producers invested money, with their investors, A promotion without the cost of a mega ad campaign is needed...so, who you gonna get....this joker, press releases to the media and to the public at large; the joker, who pans the movie without seeing it.....controversay....people talk, it's released, with 'unpaid media coverage'......becomes an intrigue....and 'ya gotta see for yourself'....type of thing. Oh, by the way....to see for yourself....'ya gotta buy a ticket.'

This 'Banned hype' has been used in the past...it became a running joke for awhile..."if you want your book to be a success, get it banned in Boston'......and so the 'Banned' thingie became a media hype.

This can be no more shocking than any 'devil' flick....Rosemary's Baby'....or any 'Jason does dallas - slashem, hackem'' explotation horror flick.

'War of the Roses' was hyped as a comedy....have you see it? No Comedy.
StarShip TRoppers...hyped for children....have you seen it...definetly not for children.

A movie, released in France....Claudine Claudell....drew great outrage, and was petitioned to be banned, really banned, no media hype here. The film centers on Rodan, a very reknown sculptor, and an affair with Claudine Cauldell, one of Rodan's admires and lover....AND, the business of art, Yes Business, Sculpture.....it (the film) revealed how the art business is run...and since Rodan is world famous, a reknown figure in the art world...well, the film threw a cloud on Rodan and what he did to Ms. Claudell. It drew an outrage, because of it's revelations, of the great Rodan, and the business of art. It's well worth seeing.

Basically, Loric, I agree with you, but this guy is no moron...he's just a hired hack.

(in reply to Loric)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 10:03:30 AM   
ienigma777


Posts: 283
Joined: 2/20/2009
Status: offline 		In England, yes.....but here in the US, the movie was hyped as being for children....Now, while I was at the local video store...when this sorrid flick was just out...Moms and Dad with their little tykes...jumping up and down, begging Dad or Mom to rent this flick...well, I rented it, to see what all the excitment was about......

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 1:13:40 PM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline 		This is Darcy.

I work with movies.  I write for and contribute to one of the most infamous and largest horror movie websites on the net which has a huge following including directors like spielberg and I have written a book about influential horror movies.  Just because I am based in the UK does not mean I do not work with people across the pond.  Starship Troopers was an R rating.  It was never aimed directly at children.  If it had been aimed at children, it would have been a PG13.  This is why many of the recent horror remakes are being distributed as PG13 because they are aimed at the young teen market, rather than us jaded old timers who are more likely to have seen the originals and therefore cheating the rest of us who want an honest to god horror.

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to ienigma777)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 3:03:49 PM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline 		FR:

I've read a little bit about the movie, and I doubt I will see it. The graphic violence I read about in the film just kind of turned me off from it. I think the scene I heard about with the actress cutting her clitoris off turned my stomach the most. Of course, I've seen worse. I don't mind graphic violence if it's part of the story, but I don't want to watch wall to wall violence. The movie that I still remember actually getting up and walking out of was Natural Born Killers. Oliver Stone can claim that it was a movie with a message all he wants, but I thought it was just a piece of shit with 2 hours of nothing but pointless violence. Call me a prude if you want, but I don't expose my mind to worthless shit.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 5:27:27 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Yeah but the only people who'd care about it are Christians. All the other religions don't have any of that "anti-Christ" stuff.
Hell, Hindus have a God you can pray to for wealth! Now why didn't the Catholic Church figure that one out?

P.S. slaveboy, Christianity has always been a very violent religion.

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 7/21/2009 5:30:58 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 6:09:51 PM   
Aneirin


Posts: 6121
Joined: 3/18/2006
From: Tamaris
Status: offline 		Maybe the Catholic church did figure that one out, but because they concerned themselves through history to the act of gathering wealth via conquest or other nefarious means, they had wealth, still have wealth, but want 'their flock' to be paupers. I never had any respect for priests in fine robes.

_____________________________

Everything we are is the result of what we have thought, the mind is everything, what we think, we become - Guatama Buddha

Conservatism is distrust of people tempered by fear - William Gladstone

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/21/2009 9:18:30 PM   
ienigma777


Posts: 283
Joined: 2/20/2009
Status: offline 		Baby, I'm tellin' ya'....hyped to children. in the US...End of story.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/22/2009 1:36:57 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ienigma777

Baby, I'm tellin' ya'....hyped to children. in the US...End of story.


This is Darcy

Not quite end of story - if this was the case then I'm sure it won't be too difficult for you to provide some backup for your claim, what with the wealth of information available on the internet.

You may be getting confused wuith Roughnecks, the animated series that was aimed at children, and for which there a line of toys were produced and marketed, but the original R-rated movie was aimed squarely at the older audience.

None of Paul Verhoeven's movies have been aimed at children

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to ienigma777)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/22/2009 2:38:33 AM   
Hawkwindblues


Posts: 183
Joined: 6/26/2009
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

None of Paul Verhoeven's movies have been aimed at children


That is the way i see it also, Paul Verhoevens ouevre is not aimed at children and i really doubt that it has been somewhere advertised as suitable for children.

_____________________________

After 10 years with the handle ZenDragoness it is time for a change.

(in reply to RCdc)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic - 7/22/2009 3:13:55 AM   
slaveboyforyou


Posts: 3607
Joined: 1/6/2005
From: Arkansas, U.S.A.
Status: offline 		I don't think Paul Verhoeven markets his movies towards young children intentionally, but he definitely has marketed many towards adolescents (most noticeably adolescent males). A lot of his movies are of the type that young boys find appealing. When Robocop came out in 1987 it originally had an X rating because of the violence. Some of the violent material was removed to bring it down to an R rating, but it was still pretty violent. Honestly within the first 10 minutes, Murphy gets his arms and legs blown off graphically with shotguns by the bad guys.

I was 12 years old when it came out, and I wanted to see it, and I did (goes to show you how effective rating restrictions are; I see young kids in R rated movies all the time.) Of course; my parents didn't give a damn what we watched. It was definitely a movie a young kid would find appealing; in fact they came out with a Robocop toy line soon after. Verhoeven had to have agreed to that toy line, and he definitely received royalties from it.



< Message edited by slaveboyforyou -- 7/22/2009 3:17:29 AM >

(in reply to Hawkwindblues)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Antichrist, as reviewed by a psychic critic Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094