Showing posts with label Willem Dafoe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Willem Dafoe. Show all posts
Friday, April 6, 2012
He's a Hunter.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Short Take: "John Carter" and "Wrath of the Titans".
If you thought Clash of the Titans was forgettable, Wrath of the Titans seems to have been made exclusively to steals its title as most forgettable movie ever. This time around Zeus (Liam Neeson) recruits his stubborn son Perseus (Sam Worthington) to save the world from his evil half-brother Ares (Edgar Ramírez) who has formed an alliance with Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to kill the gods and unleash Cronos from his underworld prison. As is the norm with movies featuring villains that want to destroy the planet, nobody ever really specifies where the villains would move to after the apocalypse, but who cares because you know Perseus will indeed save the day.
The problem with Sam Worthington embodying a world savior isn't really that he's extremely flat (which he undeniably is despite the 3D effects) but that he makes everyone around him become just as bland. Watch him literally suck the life out of Rosamund Pike, who tries as she may, fails to to make her warrior queen Andromeda remotely interesting. Worthington only comes off better when he's next to the obnoxious Toby Kebbell who plays Agenor, son of Neptune.
Watching the way in which director Jonathan Liebesman cheapens the concept of Greek mythology, you can't help but wander in your head and wonder why has Hollywood made such a hard effort to uglify everything? When compared to the way movies were made in the past, in which legendary actors played supporting roles (everyone from Brando to Olivier) and Greeks were always spotless, you have to wonder if the filmmakers behind this really think that watching Perseus dirty will make any difference and invite us to identify with him.
Everyone in this movie is either dirty or looks smelly, which not only fails to humanize their adventure, it's also preposterous to be watching in 3D. The visual effects in this movie are also so unimaginative that you wish they would've just stuck to voiceovers to describe what was going on. Lucky for you, by the time the film is over you probably will have already forgotten you saw it, which might be the only truly divine intervention that occurs here.
Taylor Kitsch stars as the title hero, a US Civil War vet who accidentally gets transported to Mars where as a Messiah he helps solve various crises, including toning down the violence among a group of four-armed aliens who regard him as a sort of Spartacus figure and getting involved in a civil war between humanoids. Of course he ends up falling for a sexy princess (Lynn Collins) who makes him wonder if home is where the heart is and considering that the film's original title was John Carter of Mars you kinda know where this one's headed to.
Directed by Andrew Stanton of WALL-E and Finding Nemo fame, it's rather surprising that the film feels so lacking in imagination. Every scene is either a blatant ripoff or an "homage" to movies like Gladiator, Avatar, Star Wars etc. and there's obviously nothing wrong with showing off your ability to stylishly reference other works (Tarantino has forged an entire career out of said gimmick) the problem is when you're excessively reverential or, eek, just plain dull.
Despite a superb star turn by Kitsch, who seriously does more than show off his impeccable body by giving Carter a soulful desperado vibe, the movie comes off as taking itself too seriously. By the time the characters are done talking about Martian myths, social issues and backstabbing, you have pretty much lost all interest in the fact that the movie promised you Indiana Jones like treats.
You can practically see Stanton's sweat drop down his forehead as he composed every frame carefully trying to show off his skills as a visual artist, yet the creatures, costumes and design in the movie feel lacking. The color palettes are arid and fail to arrest your senses. Watching John Carter feels like traversing a desert, which ought to mean big business for theater concessionary stands but just makes the audience wish they'd just get to the oasis and be done with it.
Grades
Wrath of the Titans *
John Carter **
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Fantastic Mr. Fox ***1/2
Director: Wes Anderson
Few working directors have such a recognizable visual style as Wes Anderson (if that is good or bad is another matter). In "Fantastic Mr. Fox" his first foray into animation (if you don't count the strange sea creatures from "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou") he transports his unique aesthetics to a world populated by furry, anthropomorphic puppets.
Particularly Mr. Fox (George Clooney playing Danny Ocean) a former chicken thief who chose the right path and became a newspaperman after his wife Mrs. Felicity Fox (a sly Meryl Streep) became pregnant.
When his son Ash (a brilliant Jason Schwartzman) is twelve fox years old, Mr. Fox decides he's had enough of his quiet domestic life and sets to pull off one last heist.
He recruits Kylie (Wallace Wolodarsky) the superintendent opossum, and Felicity's athletic nephew Kristofferson (Eric Anderon) to rob the farms of Boggis (Robin Hurlstone), Bunce (Hugo Guinness) and Bean (Michael Gambon).
The job goes as planned but the angry farmers retaliate and plan to get rid of Mr. Fox, his family and all the neighboring animals.
This forces the charming hero to make things right and solve the sort of existential -crises-hiding-behind-entertaining-facades that Anderson has become known for.
But "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is more than "The Royal Tenenbaums" in stop motion, based on Roald Dahl's novel, the movie actually digs deeper than Anderson ever reaches with live action.
It's as if this micro world was invented just for him as he populates it with an assortment of characters, quirks and details that are a pleasure to behold.
The puppets' little coats and accessories have textures that we could stare at for hours and the stilted way of some of their movements is a shocking contrast to the relentless need of CGI to imitate real life.
Watching this movie we're supposed to know we're watching something unreal, perhaps Anderson's actual intention was to have us wonder throughout the film "how did they do that?". This is an interesting proposition because it immediately forces us to experience the wonders of childhood where even thunder was a mystery (it might be no coincidence again that Mrs. Fox is obsessed with painting thunderstorms).
The film's surrealistic nature serves Anderson because he is finally able to explore the absurdities of his characters without the selfconsciousness of actors.
He's at such balance with the animation technique that we recognize several visual keys (like Kylie's insanely funny blank eyes) from his live action films, but if he went and gave the real Bill Murray (who voices a real estate Badger here) a furry coat, the result might be just weird.
Anderson's detachment from keeping an equilibrium between what we see and how we respond gives him the chance to create one of his greatest characters in the shape of Ash; a son trying to live up to what he thinks his father expects from him.
The droll characterization of Ash-who wears a weird cape and underwear that makes his father think he's "different"-offers enough fantasy and truthfulness to make us laugh while blushing because at some level we might recognize ourselves in him.
Forget about the zany dialogues (although Anderson and Noah Baumbach made a witty adaptation), the Jarvis Cocker cameo or the intricate production design, the real wonder in "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is that when we see a puppet shed a tear we too might be getting misty eyed.
Particularly Mr. Fox (George Clooney playing Danny Ocean) a former chicken thief who chose the right path and became a newspaperman after his wife Mrs. Felicity Fox (a sly Meryl Streep) became pregnant.
When his son Ash (a brilliant Jason Schwartzman) is twelve fox years old, Mr. Fox decides he's had enough of his quiet domestic life and sets to pull off one last heist.
He recruits Kylie (Wallace Wolodarsky) the superintendent opossum, and Felicity's athletic nephew Kristofferson (Eric Anderon) to rob the farms of Boggis (Robin Hurlstone), Bunce (Hugo Guinness) and Bean (Michael Gambon).
The job goes as planned but the angry farmers retaliate and plan to get rid of Mr. Fox, his family and all the neighboring animals.
This forces the charming hero to make things right and solve the sort of existential -crises-hiding-behind-entertaining-facades that Anderson has become known for.
But "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is more than "The Royal Tenenbaums" in stop motion, based on Roald Dahl's novel, the movie actually digs deeper than Anderson ever reaches with live action.
It's as if this micro world was invented just for him as he populates it with an assortment of characters, quirks and details that are a pleasure to behold.
The puppets' little coats and accessories have textures that we could stare at for hours and the stilted way of some of their movements is a shocking contrast to the relentless need of CGI to imitate real life.
Watching this movie we're supposed to know we're watching something unreal, perhaps Anderson's actual intention was to have us wonder throughout the film "how did they do that?". This is an interesting proposition because it immediately forces us to experience the wonders of childhood where even thunder was a mystery (it might be no coincidence again that Mrs. Fox is obsessed with painting thunderstorms).
The film's surrealistic nature serves Anderson because he is finally able to explore the absurdities of his characters without the selfconsciousness of actors.
He's at such balance with the animation technique that we recognize several visual keys (like Kylie's insanely funny blank eyes) from his live action films, but if he went and gave the real Bill Murray (who voices a real estate Badger here) a furry coat, the result might be just weird.
Anderson's detachment from keeping an equilibrium between what we see and how we respond gives him the chance to create one of his greatest characters in the shape of Ash; a son trying to live up to what he thinks his father expects from him.
The droll characterization of Ash-who wears a weird cape and underwear that makes his father think he's "different"-offers enough fantasy and truthfulness to make us laugh while blushing because at some level we might recognize ourselves in him.
Forget about the zany dialogues (although Anderson and Noah Baumbach made a witty adaptation), the Jarvis Cocker cameo or the intricate production design, the real wonder in "Fantastic Mr. Fox" is that when we see a puppet shed a tear we too might be getting misty eyed.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Best Movie Posters of 2009.
The most striking images of 2009 were sometimes found not on the movie screen but on the theater's aisles.
6. "In the Loop"
The year's zaniest comedy also has one of the funniest poster designs. Best of all is the tangle the string creates which on a fast look reminds you of the United Nations logo (that blue is conspicuous as well).
7. "Julie & Julia"
For a movie these days not to feature its leading stars' mugs in all of their Photoshopped glory, it either has to be an obscure indie aiming for awards recognition or a movie with balls.
Or eggs in the case of Nora Ephron's delightful movie about Julia Child and Julie Powell.
8. "Where the Wild Things Are"
Spike Jonze's adaptation of the beloved children's classic had the year's most sparse visual design and solved that eternal dilemma: how do you make tree tall monsters with horns and feathers believable?
9. "Up"
Walking past this in a theater aisle was like passing by an open window inviting us to jump out (or in?).
The brilliant movie made sure we wouldn't regret accepting the invitation.
10. "Bright Star"
Jane Campion's tale of star crossed lovers is perhaps the less original design in the list, but the image perfectly captures the visceral longing found in John Keats' and Fanny Brawne's doomed romance.
That empty space between their partly opened mouths describes the entire movie.
Which of these would you proudly hang on your wall?
While studios continued their tradition of unimaginative design for summer blockbusters (even if "Avatar"'s cliché design means bad posters aren't reserved for the hot months), weird floating heads and truly heinous use of Photoshop ("Nine" is the year's best example and my choice for worst poster of the year), some designers and marketing departments rose above the occasion to deliver graphic design pieces that would fit perfectly in your wall (some even in a museum) without having to make embarrassing fanboy justifications.
1. "Antichrist"
This Australian design for Lars von Trier's controversial masterpiece made a fuzz all over the internet for its truly genius use of design.
The actors, the director and even the film's title are downsized in comparison to the huge pair of rusty scissors that feature prominently in the film's most discussed scene.
The beauty of the poster though lies in how its effect is not completely immediate and we ponder on what would happen if those scissors closed.
More than a "Saw" for the arthouse crowd, both the movie and its stunning poster will give you chills whenever you think of them.
This Australian design for Lars von Trier's controversial masterpiece made a fuzz all over the internet for its truly genius use of design.
The actors, the director and even the film's title are downsized in comparison to the huge pair of rusty scissors that feature prominently in the film's most discussed scene.
The beauty of the poster though lies in how its effect is not completely immediate and we ponder on what would happen if those scissors closed.
More than a "Saw" for the arthouse crowd, both the movie and its stunning poster will give you chills whenever you think of them.
2. "Police, Adjective"
This Romanian New Wave dark comedy features one of the year's most chuckle-inducing poster designs. The one sheet draws your attention towards it and makes you want to come closer and read what's featured in its dictionary pages.
Like the best designs it also encompasses the entire movie in a single image.
This Romanian New Wave dark comedy features one of the year's most chuckle-inducing poster designs. The one sheet draws your attention towards it and makes you want to come closer and read what's featured in its dictionary pages.
Like the best designs it also encompasses the entire movie in a single image.
3. "Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire"
Lee Daniels' film had one of the year's best campaigns, with each poster topping off the last one in terms of ingenious design.
While some have favored more the Saul Bass inspired one sheet I remain more partial to this impressionistic take on Precious which perfectly captures the character.
If an overweight, illiterate teenager from the Bronx was asked to paint a self portrait wouldn't it make sense she would do it with a rudimentary technique like finger paint?
It's a shame that in the movie Daniels had to stick his nose and not let the character speak for herself, in her own terms, like this poster does.
But that's another story...
Lee Daniels' film had one of the year's best campaigns, with each poster topping off the last one in terms of ingenious design.
While some have favored more the Saul Bass inspired one sheet I remain more partial to this impressionistic take on Precious which perfectly captures the character.
If an overweight, illiterate teenager from the Bronx was asked to paint a self portrait wouldn't it make sense she would do it with a rudimentary technique like finger paint?
It's a shame that in the movie Daniels had to stick his nose and not let the character speak for herself, in her own terms, like this poster does.
But that's another story...
4. "Broken Embraces"
What at first looks like Penélope Cruz done by Andy Warhol turns to be a fascinating symbol of the movie; it captures the colorful strokes of Pedro Almodóvar's aesthetics while winking at us on the plot's layered tragedy.
After you see the movie and notice where this image is from, the poster just takes on another level, it reminds us of art's possibility to reinvent a life.
5. "District 9"
Camouflaged in bus stops and streets all over the world, this poster probably scared the crap out of more than one person. It's clever formal design evokes the film's docudrama qualities while inviting us to learn more about what's actually going on by visiting the website.
And it doesn't even mention the film's title.
What at first looks like Penélope Cruz done by Andy Warhol turns to be a fascinating symbol of the movie; it captures the colorful strokes of Pedro Almodóvar's aesthetics while winking at us on the plot's layered tragedy.
After you see the movie and notice where this image is from, the poster just takes on another level, it reminds us of art's possibility to reinvent a life.
5. "District 9"
Camouflaged in bus stops and streets all over the world, this poster probably scared the crap out of more than one person. It's clever formal design evokes the film's docudrama qualities while inviting us to learn more about what's actually going on by visiting the website.
And it doesn't even mention the film's title.
6. "In the Loop"
The year's zaniest comedy also has one of the funniest poster designs. Best of all is the tangle the string creates which on a fast look reminds you of the United Nations logo (that blue is conspicuous as well).
7. "Julie & Julia"
For a movie these days not to feature its leading stars' mugs in all of their Photoshopped glory, it either has to be an obscure indie aiming for awards recognition or a movie with balls.
Or eggs in the case of Nora Ephron's delightful movie about Julia Child and Julie Powell.
8. "Where the Wild Things Are"
Spike Jonze's adaptation of the beloved children's classic had the year's most sparse visual design and solved that eternal dilemma: how do you make tree tall monsters with horns and feathers believable?
9. "Up"
Walking past this in a theater aisle was like passing by an open window inviting us to jump out (or in?).
The brilliant movie made sure we wouldn't regret accepting the invitation.
10. "Bright Star"
Jane Campion's tale of star crossed lovers is perhaps the less original design in the list, but the image perfectly captures the visceral longing found in John Keats' and Fanny Brawne's doomed romance.
That empty space between their partly opened mouths describes the entire movie.
Which of these would you proudly hang on your wall?
Monday, January 11, 2010
Along Came a Spider (and Hollywood Squashed It).
Sony Pictures did what not even Venom could: kill Spider-Man. In what's been regarded as an insane strategy since it was announced earlier today, the studio has decided to reboot the series for the 2012 release (hmm all those Mayan theories are making more sense huh?) after director Sam Raimi refused to compromise the series' artistic integrity by rushing into a filming without a definite screenplay.
Reboots have come a standard of sorts in Hollywood, but they have been relegated for series that were in serious creative issues or were being left behind by the moving times.
When they hired Daniel Craig to play James Bond and Christopher Nolan to retell Batman from the beginning, they were not playing around. Both moves were highly risky and paid off in the best ways: box office hits and critical darlings.
But what was so wrong about Spider-Man that needed a reboot even before the first film turned a decade old?
Now that there's not much to do about this, the issue that follows is the idea of their intended reboot; according to the official release from the studio,
Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012. Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.
Don't they mean Smallville? or even worse Twilight?
If my memory serves me right Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) was bitten by the radioactive spider in the first movie, which means that whatever the studio has decided to tell in this new version will technically be set in what happened in about twenty minutes in the original film.
Hmmm perhaps because it didn't matter much?
The wonderful thing about Spider-Man was to see Maguire grow into those red tights. Remember that if it hadn't been for Raimi's genius casting of the atypical Maguire as a superhero we'd still probably be stuck with the likes of Val Kilmer and Billy Zane as comic book icons.
If Maguire hadn't been so perfect as Parker perhaps we wouldn't even have Craig as Bond or Robert Downey Jr. as Iron-Man.
It was this thinking outside the box that refreshed the superhero movie for the decade that was. With this Hollywood move we're reminded that the 2000´s are indeed over and done with.
More on the Spider-Man reboot:
Deadline Hollywood: "Spider-Man 4" Scrapped; Franchise Reboot for 2012 (includes complete statement from the studio)
Chud.com: The Devin's Advocate: Twilight for Spider-Man and Hollywood a wonderful analysis of what become the end of the blockbuster era or the perpetuation of zombiefied film production.
Cinemablend: 15 Reasons Rebooting Spider-Man is A Really Bad Idea all of them are spot on.
What does your Spidey sense tell you about this?
Reboots have come a standard of sorts in Hollywood, but they have been relegated for series that were in serious creative issues or were being left behind by the moving times.
When they hired Daniel Craig to play James Bond and Christopher Nolan to retell Batman from the beginning, they were not playing around. Both moves were highly risky and paid off in the best ways: box office hits and critical darlings.
But what was so wrong about Spider-Man that needed a reboot even before the first film turned a decade old?
Now that there's not much to do about this, the issue that follows is the idea of their intended reboot; according to the official release from the studio,
Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012. Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.
Don't they mean Smallville? or even worse Twilight?
If my memory serves me right Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) was bitten by the radioactive spider in the first movie, which means that whatever the studio has decided to tell in this new version will technically be set in what happened in about twenty minutes in the original film.
Hmmm perhaps because it didn't matter much?
The wonderful thing about Spider-Man was to see Maguire grow into those red tights. Remember that if it hadn't been for Raimi's genius casting of the atypical Maguire as a superhero we'd still probably be stuck with the likes of Val Kilmer and Billy Zane as comic book icons.
If Maguire hadn't been so perfect as Parker perhaps we wouldn't even have Craig as Bond or Robert Downey Jr. as Iron-Man.
It was this thinking outside the box that refreshed the superhero movie for the decade that was. With this Hollywood move we're reminded that the 2000´s are indeed over and done with.
More on the Spider-Man reboot:
Deadline Hollywood: "Spider-Man 4" Scrapped; Franchise Reboot for 2012 (includes complete statement from the studio)
Chud.com: The Devin's Advocate: Twilight for Spider-Man and Hollywood a wonderful analysis of what become the end of the blockbuster era or the perpetuation of zombiefied film production.
Cinemablend: 15 Reasons Rebooting Spider-Man is A Really Bad Idea all of them are spot on.
What does your Spidey sense tell you about this?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
FYC: Best Actor in a Leading Role
Filippo Timi for "Vincere"
Willem Dafoe for "Antichrist"
Sam Rockwell for "Moon"
Tom Hardy for "Bronson"
None of them will ever happen.
But they make more sense in my mind than that Yoda redux Morgan Freeman has been getting so praised for.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Antichrist ***1/2
Director: Lars von Trier
Cast: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Willem Dafoe
"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Deuteronomy 32:39
About two years ago director Lars von Trier underwent a depression that threatened to end with his career. For better or worse he overcame his ailment and out of this came "Antichrist".
It can be said that the human nature of the film ends within the first ten minutes or so, during a prologue-shot in glorious black and white by Anthony Dod Mantle, accompanied by a Handel aria-where we see a baby fall to his accidental death from a high window while his parents have sex in another room.
Stricken by guilt and pain, his mother (Gainsbourg) falls into severe depression. Her husband (Dafoe) a therapist goes against professional ethics and starts treating her.
They reach a breakthrough when she reveals she is terrified of "Eden", their cabin in the woods, (von Trier isn't one for symbolic subtleties as she makes this revelation after her husband asks her "where would you feel most exposed?").
They go to Eden where strange occurrences begin to alter the way they see the world that surrounds them and the events leading to the death of their son.
Subdivided in four chapters, the before mentioned prologue and an epilogue most of "Antichrist" doesn't take place in a comprehensible realm.
After the prologue it might be feasible to say that one must stop judging the plot based on recognizable parameters as it all turns into a macabre allegory greatly inspired by the Bible and Medieval beliefs.
All of this is basically affirmed by the title; the Antichrist being exactly the complete opposite of Christ who represents pure love.
Therefore, when we see the events He and She go through we understand that they essentially wouldn't be able to exist in a world where there is a Christ. A lot has been mentioned about the violent nature of the movie (there is a scene of genital mutilation not many will be able to stomach) but unlike gore and torture movies-which have become more popular in the last decade-the events in "Antichrist" are never suggested to be probable.
The fear instilled in us by elements in von Trier's film has nothing to do with deranged serial killers because it is all symbolic (a penetrating grindstone is less about pain and more about a woman trying to understand the nature of the male sex).
The director doesn't even expect us to understand the whys of everything in his movie as they sprung from somewhere deep within his conscience, the movie isn't about the characters it's about him; these are all fears embedded within him.
Both characters represent opposing sides in von Trier. She says "I don't know what I'm scared of", He tries his best to heal her with therapeutic methods.
It's the eternal debate of science battling the unexplainable. When she says "you are indifferent to whether your child is alive or dead" she's attributing him properties one would give to God (which makes her consequential behavior all the more heartbreaking).
It's fascinating how the director makes Gainsbourg's character completely terrified of nature, especially now when religions and spiritual currents are becoming more open to the idea of God as nature itself and not some foreign, ghostly, concept.
Since the beginning of time human beings have tried to find explanation to their misery and faith has been a great aid in this search.
It should be ironic that someone like von Trier, who has revealed so many troublesome views of spiritual faith in the past, also tries to find a meaning through this method.
What results moving is his struggle against something he knows he doesn't fully believe in (perhaps out of misunderstanding?) and when he sends He and She back to Eden-like anti Adam and Eve-he's also going with them trying to go back to the very essence of nature.
"Antichrist" has the aesthetics of Medieval tableaux (Mantle was obviously inspired by the works of Hieronymus Bosch, which makes sense considering he was one of the first painters who envisioned hell as something earthly) and sometimes the scenes achieve the kind of morbid beauty we only see in the natural world.
An ethereal deer appears to Dafoe's character only to turn around seconds later and reveal it's in the middle of stillbirth, a fox utters the film's most memorable line and falling acorns resonate with the disturbing announcement of an overpowering storm.
This coexistence of life/death is obviously evident in issues regarding sex. The prologue shows He and She enraptured with bliss as their son-who came from the very thing that is giving them pleasure at the moment-falls and dies.
A passage in Hermann Hesse's brilliant "Narcissus and Goldmund" has one character identify the face of death in the face of a woman reaching sexual climax...
He and She become especially aware of their mortality and feel completely left alone in the world (we never see any other person's face in the movie, even if we do see their bodies).
It is revealed that She was writing a thesis about the nihilism of nature being present within humans as well and while this might not come off as a delicate way to wrap up the plot, it's the director trying not to sound like a total lunatic.
His guilt may not be provoked from events as shattering as the death of a child, but this doesn't make his attempt at an explanation less worthy.
Was von Trier trying to battle his demons by identifying with them? If this was the case then "Antichrist" feels like revenge towards a God who had forsaken him.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Work of a Deranged Genius.
I didn't find "Antichrist" to be as repulsive, controversial or even as shocking as most people did.
Instead I found a sort of moving beauty to it and with that dedicatory in the end how could I not?
Review coming soon.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
It Looks Like Something Out of a Bjork Video But...
...it's none other than the first still released from Lars von Trier's upcoming "Antichrist".
That's Willem Dafoe on top of Charlotte Gainsbourg and who knows what's all the rest going on under the tree.
Simply can't wait for this to come out, I'm happy he didn't stop working like he'd said he'd do a few years ago. Now if only he'd get to working on "Wasington"...
(Click on picture for source)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)