@theoffice911: Yes, I noticed, and that was one of the reasons why I went to watch the movie in cinema yesterday :-)

+ Man on the Moon (1999) : Can't believe Jim Carrey didn't get an Oscar nomination for this role --> 7/10

Amen to that Tamara ! He was great in Eternal Sunshine and the Truman Show :-)

Possession from Andrzej Zulawski (1981)

I'm...... It's.....
pffiou It's gona take me a while to process this movie I think. My god I really dont know what to say.... but I'm gona try anyway
It is FANTASTIC!!!
Everything is pure genius: the acting is extraordinary (Isabelle Adjani is just so good I wanted to cry just looking at each of her hysteria crisis), Sam Neill is also very good and equally hysterical. The atmosphere will not leave you one minute of peace.The camera work (which is really amazing in my opinion) add to the awesomeness and the tension, the music will make you vibrate. It's considered an horror film but I'm sure those of you who have watched it will agree, it isn't really an horror film, yes there are some horror scenes in it, it's actually very disturbing but there is much more to it. It can be scary at time although weird is a better word for it. But half of the time it becomes so hysterical and deliberately grotesque that you will not stop laughing, so exalting and so much second degree in it but then again it keeps on changing, 5 mns later it becomes so serious and deep and metaphoric, and then hysterical again and then sad and beautifull... yes it is all this at the same time, a rollercoaster of madness. It left me mouth open, shaking and wondering how the hell I had to feel about this, and why the hell my mind went crazy for the past 2 hours, and what the hell happened, and how the hell I managed to have time to breave during those 2 hours with all these feelings I had to process in my head....
Absulutely genius! Pure cinema
I really feel a shame it took me so long to watch it

10/10

(Oh and it has a little Cronenberg touch (early cronenbergs and also Dead Ringers a bit), at least it is the closest of any movies I can think of :)

My new mission: watching all the Zulawski which all look as demented as this one lol

@Chrisy: You're absolutely right. Possession is such a fantastic movie. Especially, if you are not prepared as I was when I watched it. Then the movie hits you like big truck. Adjani was one of my favorite actresses before and having seen her performance in this movie this will definitely stay this way.
Besides the thing you already said I just wanted to add the depth this movie has. Much of the symbolism (e.g. the wall in Berlin) I only noticed when viewing it for a second time. And I definitely will watch it again in the future.

Adjani's performance in this movie goes far beyong any performance I have seen in a movie ever before, I was going from laugh to fear to amazement just watching her. On imdb it says Zulawski explains in the movie commentaries that when Adjani watched her performance for the first time, she actually cut her wrists, sort of a suicide attempt. Freaky!
I'm sure I have missed most of the symbolism but I was too busy with the intensity of the scenes to look further. For sure a second viewing will be necessary :)

It is true, Chrisy - Von trier did borrow from "Possession". But oh God, I hate this man and "Antichrist" is 0/10 for me.
From what I heard about "Possession" director's personal life is important, I think he wanted to kill himself before writing a script for this film.

IMHO it's far for stupid, actually this is one of the reasons I think he should never be able to work again.
For me Von Trier has some gigantic issues and he shows them in his "movies". As for alleged "love for women" I don't see any, in fact I see only hatred, not just in "Antichrist" but in "Dogville", "Dancer in the dark" etc. From what I gathered he had awful relations with his mother and that messed him up, anyways after seeing certain scenes in Dogville and Antichrist, I couldn't care less about his issues. Plus his style totally doesn't appeal to me and some scenes in Antichrist were done for sole shock value so that people would see this movie. This man digusts me. Lynch is also having some questionable scenes in his work, most apparent in "Blue Velvet" but at least they are necessary for the plot and I don't get sad, arrogant, hateful vibe from him. Each interview I read with Lars is only making me dislike him more. Some of this guys actions like arguing with jury during Cannes festival 'cause he didn't win or him saying he "is the best director in the world" are simply pathetic. As for many different things in his work...funny, cause I can always predict what's gonna happen - rape, humiliation, suffering all aimed at women. And at animals in one case.

My god, if all directors who are showing woman rapes, humiliations and suffering have something against woman, I would have to take a lot out of my collection. I haven't seen dogville but I really dont see this in Dancers in the Dark, Bjork is a very positive representation of women: courage, strengh, beauty, humility. She gets abused but in no way this is degrading the women image, in contrary. As for the director's past I couldn't care less, many artists are a bit deranged and put a lot of their sufering in their arts. In dark moments, this will also show, it is true. As for his comments in the Cannes Festival, I have seen it, I believe it was before the jury announced who won not after, but maybe i'm wrong. Anyway I thought that was very funny, second degree like Triers does the best (if you knew a bit his earlier work, dark humour, irony and provocation are Triers speciality, also in interviews, nothing new here and of course not to take literal)

I don't have anything against rapes and other scenes like that against women, I merely think there should be some limits - I love Lynch, "Natural Born Killers" is one of my fav movies and I can't wait to see "Repulsion" later on tonight. But Von Trier has no limits, his only focus is on this and he takes sick pleasure out of it. God bless if that helps him deal with stuff, he can shoot them if he finds people like Charlotte Gainsbourg, who by the way, lost my respect after that role, but unleash it on the World? Why? If he says he doesn't make his movies for audiance but for himself, then I'd really want him to stop poisoning the world with his crap :) Someone once asked him why does he treat women like that in his movies and he said "Everyone loves watching suffering woman, don't you?". And if you read a little how he treated actresses, especially Bjork and Bryce Dallas Howard, the fact that he hates women becomes even more evident. And the man killed a fucking donkey, let's not forget about that :)


theoffice you are still really confused about my hair color, aren''t you?:D

I saw both of those, but von Trier is pushing it. Every movie he made in the last what 15 years shows exact same things.
And "Irreversible" has 2 horrific scenes, but it's not like Bellucci's character exist there only so the director could unleash his sick demons on her, as Lars does.

SPOILER ALERT ** SPOILER ALERT **
Well I guess I missed "the message" then. I saw the symbols (I didn't get the clothes? What about them?) but that only lead me to the conclusion I saw an allegorical story on divorce. I failed to see anything "deeper" than that (not saying this is the director's fault lol maybe I am a dumbass)

"Every movie he made in the last what 15 years shows exact same things"
Let's take "Dancers in the Dark", "Antichrist" and "the Idiots", please explain me the similarities also in the message because I do not see what you see... Not much things comparable in those 3 movies, appart from a taste for provocation in the last 2 maybe.
I can totally understand that some people dont like his films and his character. I also do not like everything he has done, but I'm not shocked or offended by any of them, I dont get all the fuzz around his work, there has been some movies and directors in the past a lot more disturbing and controversal than what he does (a lot more). Luckelly some directors have no limit, there should be no tabooes, no moral boundaries and no political correctiness. And I'm actually very glad some directors make movies for themself, because if they would all try to please the mass, movies would be more boring than ever (most of them already are that's true, probably for this reason). Gaspar Noe also said he makes movies mainly for himself and I'm so glad he does. And when you watch his progression in movies: "Carne" and "Seul contre tous" can be very disturbing and surelly come from a tormented mind (Oh and next he says he's gonna make.... a porn lol). Not even mentionning Larry Clark movies: his movies show teanager sex life in a very realistic and explicit way, does that make him a sick guy who loves to watch kids having sex? he has been called a pervert many time, but luckelly some viewers see something else in this.

"Charlotte Gainsbourg, who by the way, lost my respect after that role", Oh please! it is like the people who called her a slut during the Cannes festival, those people should all watch Disney if they dont want to be offended.

Directors should not have any limits, let them express their demons if they like, let them torture women and men (how many directors's speciality is to represent men suffering, you dont hear people screaming that it's a scandal).
I feel exactly the same way about humour, I love directors who can make me laugh about the unlaughable. I'm thinking of Todd Solondz for example and his comedies (pedophily, racism, religion, moralities...).

As theoffice911 said, you make your self your own limits with movies

And there are probably much more directors who are total assholes in real life, who are terrible with their actors, who beat their wife or whatever. I couldn't care less about the way they are in real life

But anyway, we should maybe open another topic if we want to discuss this further, cause I could also keep going on and on and I'm sure you will too. Not really the place for it :)

Well you asked why do people say Von Trier hates women. I gave you examples :)
I don't remember "Idiots" that well but "Antichrist", "Dancer in the Dark" and "Dogville" all have explicit scenes were women are being used and they don't even put up a fight. In Antichrist woman is a personification of evil, in Dancer in the Dark woman is used, humiliated and goes through horrible things, yes the men are awful in the movie, but it's woman we see suffer again. Dogville again has suffering women, used by men (entire village to be specific). So there you go - humiliation, needless sex scenes, rapes, women killing people, children in 2 of those films. That, combined with von Trier's background and things he says results in the fact people think he hates women. And how he treats people is why I don't like him - plus the guy is obviously sick. I don't know maybe I'm just more sensitive than you are - but when I read that Howard had to masturbate in front of him and entire crew over 20 times because Lars wanted to shoot many takes and kept grinning throughout the whole thing I feel utter disgust.
Oh, I'd be right there calling Gainsbourg slut as well, not because I was offended but because she has no respect for herself - scenes like that are fine, but not when the movie is basically a porn made only so that people would see it and Lars got money. She should really stick to singing. I'd love to see Disney movies, but they make me feel old so I can't :D
My point is there should always be context to the scene - people are mostly sick and weak and they see movies and get inspired by them like those kids who jumped out of buildings after seeing "Matrix" 'cause they thought they could fly. You have von Trier showing rapes and women putting up with it - where can this lead? especially that in "Dogville" the story could have ended before all the rapes happen and the ending to the movie is even more disgusting than "Antichrist". If those guys puts their demons and issues in they movies they should think how the public may react. Because I don't think anything good can come from watching something like "Antichrist". Besides Von Trier is boring and predictable, I can guess what's going on in the movie without seeing it.
My point is not that there shouldn't be movies with scenes like that but when someone is ONLY doing movies about that and contains rape and murder in most his movies - he has issues. That's why you don't see me disliking Lynch or Bergman or even Noe. Take "Irreversible" - horrible rape scene but the movie is not about woman being evil, boy toy or the subject of utter humiliaton. It's about the fact events in our life are as the title says irreversible. There's a message there that doesn't put a label on women.
I'm only against von Trier because in my opinion this man has apparant issues and his movies have no other purpose than for him to play his sick games.
Let's just agree to disagree as theoffice says:D

+ Repo Men : 3/10 --> Some intense action scenes but otherwise it's a no brainer, filled with plot holes... Oh and there's an awful hommage to my favorite Oldboy scene. I guess Forest Whitaker needed cash :-(

Well I already stated I agreed with sati concerning von Trier (read some Bjork's interviews, she hates him) but I disagree when you say movies like these shouldn't be made because it'll lead to guys raping women.
Let's face it, the kid who jumped from a window after watching "The Matrix" was a dumbass. You can't blame "The Matrix" for kids being stupid ; blame the parents or the society or the school system but don't blame it on Keanu Reeves (you can criticize his acting skills if you want though)
You can't blame "Scream" everytime a teenage psycho go crazy with a knife. You can't blame Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shooting, you can't blame "Irréversible" every time a woman gets raped and so on... People with such behaviors already had the "evil" (lack of a better world, don't wanna sound religious tho) inside of them and would have done such horrible things even after watching "Sponge Bob : The Movie" I would actually dare to say that it's the opposite and these movies can be a catharsis for those people.
These type of behaviors have existed all throughout history and unfortunately will go on existing. Censorship won't change anything. History is filled with psychos, murderers, rapists, serial killers who never saw a von Trier's movie.

"mindless Jason Statham movies"

Wow this one is going to hurt... All Hell Will Break Loose
Release the Kraken !!

Theooffice I agree with everything you said. But when the murderer admits that the movie inspired him, or when a psychologist determines a link between the movie and the crime, you gotta ask yourself if that particular crime took place if it wasn't for the scene that inspired it. Probably another one would have happened yes, but maybe before it did the person would get appropriate help, the effects would be different etc.
Sure, as themooch says anything could have pushed the button but it didn't - if it was a movie, or a scene and that's a fact than it wasn't 'anything' it was that particuliar work of art.
And themooch there are studies. I read books about it, I go on lectures about it. I'm not a conservative person, in fact I'm very liberal but those are merely the facts, I've been introduced to on my university and in the books I read. Nobody is shifting the blame - obviously the murderer or the rapist should go to prison and take the blame, but what triggered their actions was sometimes a movie, a scene or a song.
And again I'm not talking about all the violence in the media, only about von Trier. I feel, it's my personal opinion and you don't have to agree, that his films lack context and he enjoys showing rapes and violence without any purpose. It's my opinion and it's not likely to change :)
Statham is a bad example, Crank 2 and Revolver are definetly not movies for general audiance, i think themooch only used his name to make me mad, but it's not gonna work :P "Possession" was thought-provoking for me, "Irreversible" was, and they both had strong scenes. Neither of von Trier movies had such effect on me. All I'm saying :)

Hmmm sorry cuttie but I'm gonna go with them00ch on this one...

"the crowd from Twilight or romantic comedies or women above 40 years old"

..are not general audience. You have selected a specific demographic, which is the opposite of a general audience.

errr... I focused on that sentence because that was the relevant part of your post - a post which only had one sentence in it. No I am not saying that Revolver will appeal to everyone - but that isnt because its not MARKETED at a general audience, but because its a terrible, rubbish movie. Same with Crank 2. How is me pointing out an error on your part - re: what defines a "general audience" - mocking you? Grow up.

Well if I may, them00ch talked about a separation between Statham movies and the more introspective and thought-provoking "seventh art" of cinema.
You can't compare movies like Revolver or Crank2 (them00ch stop me if I'm wrong) to any movies by Godard, Kieslowski, Fellini, Kurosawa, Bergman, Renoir, Truffaut, Buñuel, Jodorowski, Tarkovsky, Ozu, and so on... They don't belong to the same categories that's all. It's like comparing Harry Potter books with Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables" or comparing Lady Gaga with Mozart : that doesn't make sense

Revolver was produced and co-written by Luc Besson! The guy wrote The Transporter, Taxi, From Paris with Love, Taken, B13... So obviously it's marketed at a general audience and any comparison with "seventh art" cinema would be foolish. It's fun, it's entertaining but nothing more. I had to wait a month before renting "Crank2" when the DVD came out because everybody wanted to watch it. When I rent "The Holy Mountain" there was dust all over the box... That gives you an idea lol

Yes, especially if Statham calls von Trier "bitch".

Anyway...
Anyone saw a movie today?