I, and I imagine Spence would as well, go out of my way to find the most uncut version of a film. Don't get too high and might the US release of Brain Dead aka Dead Alive has somthing in the region of 13 mins cut out that were left in in the UK version. And watch when Anti Christ gets released... Now you're just being difficult.
According to urban dictionary "RFSO isn't defined yet. " Very entertaining thread.. Anyone want to buy a NY Yankee stadium no smoking sign?
My original post wasn't meant to bring the seller down or chase their listing out with a pitchfork or torch. I was just trying to provide reasoning for why people may drag the thread down and call it out for not belonging. They were really cheap, and clearly the number of people I personally know with region free enabled DVD players is not a good reflection of how many SB folks have them. For that, I apologize for coming off so negative, they were beyond legit prices, better than your average Craigslist DVD firesale. Well, I don't DIY or crack my electronics, but I never needed to, as my DVD player was an old region free one, til it got stolen. I promise you I'm into films though enough to spend the next week sitting in the theater at Fantastic Fest (where I was thinking of seeing Antichrist, I presume you recommend it?). I'd be thrilled to hear that another SB'er were to be in attendance.
Way off topic, but - I wouldn't miss Anti Christ, it's not a film for everyone, and I'm not just talking about all the noise it's getting. It is a stunning film, the images have stuck with me for about a week now. But it's a total art house film. If given the chance to see it in the cinema, I don't think you should miss it. So, take that how you will.
Thanks for the insight, sadly, it's profile on the FF website is one of the very few that has no description, and it didn't have a trailer (http://fantasticfest.bside.com/2009/fil ... icfest2009) so all I had to go on was one of my pals excitement for it.
Fuck yeah! Regarding Antichrist: I've just had a conversation this weekend with a good friend who really liked it so I'm not out to dismiss anybody's opinion, but to me it was - Anthony Dod Mantle's excellent camerawork aside - amateurish, misogynistic, pseudo-intellectual torture porn not very cleverly disguised as an "art house film". Still highly entertaining for all its involuntary comedic genius though, but then I usually find that to be the case with von Trier's films. And I'm not merely referring to the talking fox. So basically I guess I'm also telling you to go see it...
im siked... the el capitan is playing a double feature of toy story and toy story 2 in 3D in a couple weeks
Acronym Definition RFSO Restaurants For Sale Online (classified ads website) RFSO Request for Standing Offer (Canada) RFSO Raised-Face Slip On (pipe flange) at least thats what i got from freedictionary.com
Anti-Christ is great if you are a Von Trier fan. If you have little exposure to his work it's a bit hard to swallow. The visuals were very impressive and the acting is some of Dafoe's best in years but I can't imagine how someone who has no exposure to earlier work by Von Trier would react to WTF is going on in that film. I've been a huge fan of his since his Kingdom miniseries and Anti-Christ did little to change my love of his work.
my interest in antichrist has certainly piqued after all the hype in this thread... never seen any of von trier's work, but being a huge dafoe fan i'm sure i will enjoy it if for no other reason than that.. too bad it doesn't come out stateside for another month... i'll be sure to try and catch it in the theatre.. sunshine theatre, anyone?? and to the person who said it would be a bit much if not familiar with von trier's earlier work, maybe you and some other's in the know can recommend a good place to start...
The Kingdom Breaking the Waves Dancer in the Dark Manderlay In my opinion those are his best work. Some may have other recommendations but you can't lose with those.
The Idiot is quite good. But yeah, I can see how it it could be a proper WTF fest. So not knowing everyone's personal tastes, I not screaming that it's amazing, which it is, but proceed with caution, I fully expect a lot of people to walk away saying it's shit, and equally people raving about it.
Yea that's sorta the catch. It's hard to say well Von Trier was just jumping genres and decided to do a horror film. I mean it to some extent is a horror film made by one of the most stylistic directors working today. (Chan Wook Park is up there too) But I think some people will sit down with this film and just see it as something that should have never been made. But there is something there and it really is great. I saw at a festival with a good group of people who understood his work, except for the people walking out cursing at people for staying to watch this masochist porn, the person who threw up running out of the theater only to come back and finish the film, and my girlfriend who has no experience with his work but managed to let the visuals haunt her for weeks to come. I don't mean the graphic ones, the other ones, the ones that do stick with you far more then the violence. You won't find a film this year where people will be more harshly divided and that's the point of great art isn't it?
I completely wouldn't call it a horror film, at all. It's a nightmare for sure, but it transcends genre definition I think. And I would say anyone who calls it a horror really has shit tons to learn about more than I would every have time to go into. That's no attack on you, because I think you know where I am coming from. I have the same thing to be honest, it is... yeah haunting, and also not the graphic ones, which are so secondary to the entire thing. I really need to see it again I think. When I saw it I was blown away, but not in love, but as it settles on me, I like it more and more. Which to me makes it a great... yeah, piece of art.
this is how people felt about Martyrs, last year. I was in the middle on it, though. Not exactly an "art house film," but did any of you catch that?
Ha, I've been waiting for someone to bring that up! Actually, Martyrs and Irréversible were the first two films that came to my mind after watching Antichrist. Irréversible because Cassel's and Bellucci's characters aren't exactly likeable people either (even superficial I'd say), but seemed all the way more palpable and human to me for exactly that reason and thus made me care about them eventually - as opposed to Dafoe's & Gainsbourg's characters and their dialogue in Antichrist which just felt contrived to me. I just couldn't help but shake my head at some of the lines they were uttering, found a lot of them unintentionally funny and found no access to the characters' motivations at all. I also feel von Trier presents his views rather heavy-handedly, apart from finding them highly debatable - backtrack, AladdinSane, may I ask what yob think about the general allegations that von Trier is a misogynist (not only in the context of Antichrist which just seems to make that point as blatantly as can be, starting with the title's typography)? I think Martyrs, on the other hand, fucks with you in an unbelievably perfidious and subtle way, making you believe you're watching just another French hardgore genre flick that's all about revenge & ghastly creatures/hallucinations before brutally pulling the rug from under you and basically putting you in the exact same situation that its main character finds herself in (up to the final little "twist" of presenting the etymological origin of the word "martyr" as the end credits start). I also find it very interesting that both Laugier and von Trier claim to have worked through a depression by making their respective films, because Martyrs, despite all its grisly subject matter and horrendous images is plain sad and depressing (I think Laugier himself even called it "melancholic" somewhere) whereas Antichrist just felt mean-spirited to me, like a spiteful child lashing out indiscriminately. Also note that Laugier hardly shows an explicit act of graphic violence in the movie's second half while von Trier resorts to close-ups that reminded me more of something Lenzi, Fulci or d'Amato might have done. Excuse my lengthy ramblings, I just don't want to come across as someone who's bashing von Trier simply for the fact that he's making "art house movies" - I love cinema far too much for that and consider, for instance, Aoyama's Eureka one of my favourite films of all time. And yah, this thread should probably be split and moved...
