Lar's actors and actresses are always so finely tuned with his ideas on what seems such a personal level (Im speaking in terms of Antichrist onwards) that I find people like Mark Kermode to be totally unnecessary and irritating in interviews like this. Willem know's what's up. Mark is looking for reasons to tie Lars down as a "prankster" all the time and boasting about being thrown out of Cannes for being an obnoxious fool.
Yeah, it's exactly an embarrassing fact about him. The idiots is a goddamn masterpiece (see Knausgaard on this) and no one has ever talked about it as a movie you walk away from after 15 minutes. How the hell?!
Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian said the exact same thing. I do agree with Mark about the film being in part *about* misogyny though. They even had a "misogyny researcher" in the credits.
Love Willem. He's on the money with the description. The film is about grief and guilt for the child's death while giving into temptation. Chaos reigns. Nature is what it is. It's the only von Trier film I like aside from Dancer in The Dark
Willem Dafoe comes off as incredibly sophisticated. His words are few but razor-sharp. I've noticed a far-reaching trend within philosophers, directors and actors i've come across, where they embody a complete opposite of the art they create. Dafoe is a perfect example. Nietzsche, who Dafoe mentions, for instance, laid in bed for the last few years of his life while writing about power and bodily-vitality.
I like that it is a discussion. and that Dafoe and Kermode have opposing views and they discuss them civily and with respect for each other. Because that's far more interesting than that scene in Wayne's World where Harry Shearer just goes "uh huh". So, this is a fab interview with two of my favourtie film related people.
Kubrick broke the rules set by Hollywood, but he was also developing some of the ideas set by Europe. When I finally caught up with Resnais' LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD, I was amazed by some of the visual coups Kubrick seemed to have "borrowed": the panning shots of the gardens (BARRY L), the glowing bar (THE SHINING), the glass falling to the floor and smashing (2001). And of course Ophuls' LA RONDE, a clear stylistic influence on EYES WIDE SHUT, (and another Schnitzler adaptation).
Like the Adam and Eve story, paradise became the way they behaved. The world crumbled because they gave into temptation. This might have a similar thing, the world acting on their personality.
Very true. Hearing the responses of the actors to the opinions of the critics is far more interesting than just hearing the same answers from the same questions.
I think Mark is saying “it is absolutely about this” and Willem is saying it’s far more nuanced than that it’s about the tension between sexes not the hatred of women.
@Bassbait I haven't seen Antichrist either, but I'm going to download it soon (can't buy, and sure as hell can't find it at any library to borrow). I go on Rob's site from time to time, if you remember me.
Put it like this. Many years ago I interviewed an award-winning Brit playwright, Peter Barnes, who wrote THE RULING CLASS (made into a film with Peter O'Toole). A film-buff all his life, he told me he hated all the films of Lean and Kubrick. "Even PATHS OF GLORY?" I spluttered. "So, who are your favourite directors?" Without any irony, he said, "Carpenter. And Mizoguchi." Now, you might think it odd for an all-time top ten to have THE THING next to SANSHO THE BAILIFF. But it happens.
For me, the title of the film is very fitting and my favorite part of the film (not directly of course). The antichrist ends up being "Her" as her case of depression takes the form of a demonic possession reminiscent of other exorcism/possession films. "Him" (Dafoe) takes the place of the exorcising priest as his psychiatric (psychoanalyst?) training mirrors that of a priest purging the corrupted victim of the demon (in the film, depression). I dont think this reading is a reach really. I think its a clever way for LvT to frame a horror film--one which is in the same vain as the exorcist in theme--as a modern, scientific story.
I think you are definitely on the nose with this, however, it is one step further. The Antichrist is the spirit of the knowledge that one possesses when staring at nature for what it is and not what we wish it to be. The Antichrist is both of them, first her as she explains how She heard all the things crying that were to die (auditory experience) and his was when He saw all the feminine figures walking all through the woods (visual experience). Each receives their initiation into the darkness of nature. It is spurred by trauma and is traumatic in and of itself. The reason She was going insane was because the knowledge was eating her alive. At the end, He receives his initiation. It begins as he goes down to drink some water and suddenly has an abrupt understanding that he is attempting to drink from something that just tried to kill him. He sits up and looks around, no longer the detached therapist, and he finally sees the horror of what is all around him. The Antichrist is the knowledge of the hideousness of God's work (nature). Nature possesses us all.
Willem.. on behalf of all genuine and down to earth ppl.. I’m sorry you actually had to sit through this clown show of an interview. If the only thing you remember from watching AntiChrist is the genital mutilation then you’re obviously not mature minded enough to understand the depth of complex narratives this film explored.
I finally got around to watching anti-christ and it blew my mind. It is so much more than the scenes which caused a stir. It's also very sincere, impressive and authentic. Kermode is wonderful and astute, but he was quite disrespectful towards his guest here...
It is nice to see him disagreeing with Kermode. I'll give the movie a look. He does have a Joker look to him, but I hoped that Nolan would go for Chris Ecclestone for the Joker, not to take anything away from Ledger.
Yes, I know, I did say "the first time" he saw the film. We all can change our minds as we get older (I don't like Pink Floyd now, I didn't like Debussy then). My point is that at that time, Kubrick didn't say "You're wrong!" or "You don't get it!" He respected Spielberg's view, but pointed out it was a view rooted in a different set of aesthetic values to his own, which preferred the restraint of Fonda and Tracey to the extroversion of Cagney. Two views, both with validity.
Which is why people, including Spielberg, were simply unprepared for THE SHINING, coming after so many years of Strasberg-led "Method" (or what Antony Hopkins calls, interestingly, "stylized realism".) But you'd be surprised, I meet many young people today who love the film, since they weren't expecting a Nicholson performance in the vein of FIVE EASY PIECES, or CHINATOWN. It's more in the vein of Emil Jannings, Barrymore, and, of course, Cagney.
I think you're being a bit harsh on Crowe. He did have a run of award nominations, but thats in part due to his performance. I think he tries to pick juicy roles; and there's nothing wrong in that.
I think he's a bit like Timothy West, in the sense that his ragged (but appealing) looks kind of ruled him out of being a Hollywood hearthrob in the way that De Niro was once (sort of). Wouldn't you class The Last Temptation of Christ as a contender?
I'm intrigued to see the movie Antichrist due to all of the negative reaction it's received in early reviews and people at Cannes booing and jeering the film. Does anyone else think that if Heath Ledger had not played the Joker in The Dark Knight that Willem Defoe would have been a good choice? he certainly has the look lol.
Yes indeed, but even great artists have to admit that once their work is "out there" in the world, spectators might not appreciate it in the way they would wish. (Arthur Miller had to concede this once the McCarthy witch hunts were over, and many audiences were responding to THE CRUCIBLE without knowing it was an allegory for 1950s American politics.) There will always be an element of subjectivity when making aesthetic judgments. Kubrick hated Gance's NAPOLEON, but many call it a masterpiece.
Perhaps Kermode is simplifying it a bit, which is why Dafoe so readily disagrees with him initially, but you can say all those things they mention the film is about - the nature of grief, relationships, even misogyny I guess, are all there. Remember, the Man in this film attempts to 'cure' Woman's depression by taking control of her, acting as her Doctor, taking her to the woods when she says her second biggest fear is nature, telling her what's best for her etc. The more he attempts to do this, control the situation and Woman, the more manic Woman becomes, to the point where she believes that her whole gender is inherently evil and eventually harms Man and herself.
Interesting: I was too young to see THE SHINING back in 1980 (X cert, or 18 as it's called now) When I did see it I liked it, as I was expecting to see "the film with that silly Jack Nicholson performance." And it was the full length 146 minute version with the early scene with the paediatrician, which had been shown by accident on Brit TV (the European version is 116 mins). Most people here don't know that version, which Kubrick had trimmed himself.
Similarly, David Lynch freely admits that he's met people who don't like ERASERHEAD (my all time fave film, and one of Stanley K's faves as well) simply because they find it too slow. I wouldn't expect everyone to like my other favourite "visually driven films" (SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS, RATCATCHER, THE CONFORMIST, PERSONA, STALKER (Tarkovsky)). In fact I know they don't. But you just disagree, and move on. My best mate, now a model animator on FRANKENWEENIE, loves BARRY L. I don't.
"For all I know, you could just 'like' his films." The point is, you don't know. You don't have to agree with me, or Mark K, or John Baxter, or Pauline Kael. Just accept there are other opinions which may not tally with your own. If what I'm doing is argumentum ad vericundam, what your doing is illustrating one of MK's own points: "Opinions are like arseholes Everyone's got one, and everyone's convinced theirs is the only one that doesn't stink."
I "lack the sophistication" to appreciate artistic filmmaking? Interesting, considering the fact I submitted a dissertation on David Lynch while I was at Cambridge. And if you think I'm alone in considering O'Neill as miscast, think again: it's a view shared by John Baxter, the author of STANLEY KUBRICK: A BIOGRAPHY, published in the late 1990s, who also knows how to separate "entertainment" from "artistry".
Why are you so concerned about my comments on Kermode? Is no one allowed to give anything but unanimous praise to this man? I comment on Kermode because he deserves to be taken to task for his arrogant and bullish manner and views, and because it amuses me to do so. As for the 'importance' of my opinions -they are as important as anyone else's. No more, no less. Don't worry about your hero - he's a big boy; he can take it.
Yes I know: I actually like EYES WIDE SHUT, unlike most people I've met. I never said Kubrick was "style over substance". But BARRY LYNDON, for me, comes too close to it. Of course I accept it has its admirers. But my comment was only about BARRY LYNDON, not Kubrick as a filmmaker.
Ah, for me there's the rub. Even after 11 years, for me there was no attempt to follow T2. Not only did I find the action incredibly boring and inconsequential, but the constant broad comedy was entirely inappropriate. The score sucks too. Last 5 minutes are decent though but IMHO, by then it really is too little too late.
Sorry, but I've never understood the enthusiasm for Kubrick's BARRY LYNDON. It's a dramatically inert, waxwork-like piece which has a terribly miscast Ryan O'Neil as Barry. Beautiful to look at, as you'd expect: but you have to remember that the film only really happened because Kubrick needed a story and script to justify all the pre-production work he'd done on his aborted NAPOLEON project.
Well, uh, I'm happy to loathe and detest and be disgusted at that film by myself - critics seemed to think it was okay too. I dunno - maybe they were comparing it on the Batman and Robin Scale of Awfulness.
The first half of the film is ok but the second half (when they go to the woods) is absolutely rubbish, disgusting, and an insult to the intellect of the viewers.
Dafoe outshines Kermode in intelligence here. Kermode is nothing but a prima-donna and not particularly intelligent or illuminating when it comes to cinema.
Condensed version: Kermode: I think this
Dafoe: No, you're wrong
Exactly but Dafoe's response was eloquent and not as blunt.
Yes, condensed versions do tend to be rather blunt
TLDR
Dafoe comes across very well in this. I wish more actors were as eloquent offscreen.
Dafoe's voice comes purely out of my subwoofer. Brilliant.
Dafoe is absolutely amazing
Willem Dafoe does know what he is talking about. I very much would like to be able to accurately formulate things like he does
i definitely agree!
I agree with you he is very sensitive and well spoken.
You do!🍦
Stupid lol
Listen to Willem Dafoe. He explains it with much patience and sensitivity. The film is meant to open up a discussion about religion and fear.
I'm something of an anti-Christ myself.
Supreme comment
I'm also something of a Jesus Christ myself
I love how everyone actually listened to and acknowledged what the others were saying.
Lar's actors and actresses are always so finely tuned with his ideas on what seems such a personal level (Im speaking in terms of Antichrist onwards) that I find people like Mark Kermode to be totally unnecessary and irritating in interviews like this. Willem know's what's up. Mark is looking for reasons to tie Lars down as a "prankster" all the time and boasting about being thrown out of Cannes for being an obnoxious fool.
Yeah, it's exactly an embarrassing fact about him. The idiots is a goddamn masterpiece (see Knausgaard on this) and no one has ever talked about it as a movie you walk away from after 15 minutes. How the hell?!
Mark trying to tie Lars down as a "prankster" all the time is the only way he can connect with him.
æ
Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian said the exact same thing.
I do agree with Mark about the film being in part *about* misogyny though. They even had a "misogyny researcher" in the credits.
The fact that Willem isn't on twitter makes me smile.
Don't brag about getting thrown out for heckling a movie you didn't like. It's not cool!
It's tradition for cannes to heckle or shout out at the end of movies whether its positive or negative
@@justicejericho97 I find yelling at screens disrespectful not only towards the art and artists themselves, but to the rest of the audience as well
More discussions like this please! Grown up debates about film/ art... Awesome.
Love Willem. He's on the money with the description. The film is about grief and guilt for the child's death while giving into temptation. Chaos reigns. Nature is what it is. It's the only von Trier film I like aside from Dancer in The Dark
Dogville
"Melancholia" is brilliant. Kind of out of the same box as this, in a way.
Willem Dafoe is a great actor. He looks fantastic hasn't aged..love his movies ..Willem you are awesome I just love you.
nice to see jerma making it big
Willem Dafoe comes off as incredibly sophisticated. His words are few but razor-sharp. I've noticed a far-reaching trend within philosophers, directors and actors i've come across, where they embody a complete opposite of the art they create. Dafoe is a perfect example. Nietzsche, who Dafoe mentions, for instance, laid in bed for the last few years of his life while writing about power and bodily-vitality.
I like that it is a discussion. and that Dafoe and Kermode have opposing views and they discuss them civily and with respect for each other. Because that's far more interesting than that scene in Wayne's World where Harry Shearer just goes "uh huh". So, this is a fab interview with two of my favourtie film related people.
Kubrick broke the rules set by Hollywood, but he was also developing some of the ideas set by Europe. When I finally caught up with Resnais' LAST YEAR IN MARIENBAD, I was amazed by some of the visual coups Kubrick seemed to have "borrowed": the panning shots of the gardens (BARRY L), the glowing bar (THE SHINING), the glass falling to the floor and smashing (2001). And of course Ophuls' LA RONDE, a clear stylistic influence on EYES WIDE SHUT, (and another Schnitzler adaptation).
William is using his brain for sure, instead of just agreeing with Kermode who in my opinion is the best film critic.
Wow, Willem is such a great spokesman!
Wouldve been great to hear more from Willem
I find it fascinating that Willem Dafoe actually sounds like that in real life - he has a really frightening voice...
Frightening? His voice is like a warm, cozy blanket to me.
Like the Adam and Eve story, paradise became the way they behaved. The world crumbled because they gave into temptation. This might have a similar thing, the world acting on their personality.
Timothy, I've never thought about it like that, but wow, what a great analogy! well done.
Very true. Hearing the responses of the actors to the opinions of the critics is far more interesting than just hearing the same answers from the same questions.
Willem could play an AMAZING Joker !!
Great vid!
Dafoe is on point.
I think Mark is saying “it is absolutely about this” and Willem is saying it’s far more nuanced than that it’s about the tension between sexes not the hatred of women.
I love the traffic guy coming in!
Defoe is the only actor I believe could play Hans Landa other than Christoph Waltz.
The more I think about that the more I agree
He just needs to attend some night school classes to learn fluent German, French, and Italian
Oh wow. That's perfect
@Bassbait
I haven't seen Antichrist either, but I'm going to download it soon (can't buy, and sure as hell can't find it at any library to borrow). I go on Rob's site from time to time, if you remember me.
Put it like this. Many years ago I interviewed an award-winning Brit playwright, Peter Barnes, who wrote THE RULING CLASS (made into a film with Peter O'Toole). A film-buff all his life, he told me he hated all the films of Lean and Kubrick. "Even PATHS OF GLORY?" I spluttered. "So, who are your favourite directors?" Without any irony, he said, "Carpenter. And Mizoguchi." Now, you might think it odd for an all-time top ten to have THE THING next to SANSHO THE BAILIFF. But it happens.
Yes, which is why I started my original remark, deliberately, with the all-important word: "personally."
For me, the title of the film is very fitting and my favorite part of the film (not directly of course). The antichrist ends up being "Her" as her case of depression takes the form of a demonic possession reminiscent of other exorcism/possession films. "Him" (Dafoe) takes the place of the exorcising priest as his psychiatric (psychoanalyst?) training mirrors that of a priest purging the corrupted victim of the demon (in the film, depression). I dont think this reading is a reach really. I think its a clever way for LvT to frame a horror film--one which is in the same vain as the exorcist in theme--as a modern, scientific story.
Maybe that’s why he thinks it’s mysogynist
I think you are definitely on the nose with this, however, it is one step further. The Antichrist is the spirit of the knowledge that one possesses when staring at nature for what it is and not what we wish it to be. The Antichrist is both of them, first her as she explains how She heard all the things crying that were to die (auditory experience) and his was when He saw all the feminine figures walking all through the woods (visual experience). Each receives their initiation into the darkness of nature. It is spurred by trauma and is traumatic in and of itself. The reason She was going insane was because the knowledge was eating her alive. At the end, He receives his initiation. It begins as he goes down to drink some water and suddenly has an abrupt understanding that he is attempting to drink from something that just tried to kill him. He sits up and looks around, no longer the detached therapist, and he finally sees the horror of what is all around him. The Antichrist is the knowledge of the hideousness of God's work (nature). Nature possesses us all.
The quote "audible chocolate" comes to mind.
Willem is a national treasure.
Willem.. on behalf of all genuine and down to earth ppl.. I’m sorry you actually had to sit through this clown show of an interview.
If the only thing you remember from watching AntiChrist is the genital mutilation then you’re obviously not mature minded enough to understand the depth of complex narratives this film explored.
Like you only remembered referencing the mutilation from the interview...
I already like this film based on Willem's voice...
I finally got around to watching anti-christ and it blew my mind. It is so much more than the scenes which caused a stir. It's also very sincere, impressive and authentic.
Kermode is wonderful and astute, but he was quite disrespectful towards his guest here...
It is nice to see him disagreeing with Kermode. I'll give the movie a look.
He does have a Joker look to him, but I hoped that Nolan would go for Chris Ecclestone for the Joker, not to take anything away from Ledger.
Straight up this movie broke something in me....very very messed up. I watched it when it first came out. 😟😓😟🙁☹😓
Yes, I know, I did say "the first time" he saw the film. We all can change our minds as we get older (I don't like Pink Floyd now, I didn't like Debussy then). My point is that at that time, Kubrick didn't say "You're wrong!" or "You don't get it!" He respected Spielberg's view, but pointed out it was a view rooted in a different set of aesthetic values to his own, which preferred the restraint of Fonda and Tracey to the extroversion of Cagney. Two views, both with validity.
@TulseLuper Russel Crowe should take note
Bit of Kermodian skepticism is good, but I agree with Dafoe's take
the last scene of the film does make him seem like an antichrist figure as all things sort of bow to him.
Which is why people, including Spielberg, were simply unprepared for THE SHINING, coming after so many years of Strasberg-led "Method" (or what Antony Hopkins calls, interestingly, "stylized realism".) But you'd be surprised, I meet many young people today who love the film, since they weren't expecting a Nicholson performance in the vein of FIVE EASY PIECES, or CHINATOWN. It's more in the vein of Emil Jannings, Barrymore, and, of course, Cagney.
damn from listening to the podcasts i always imagined mark kermode as a skinny 20 year old nerdy guy
I think you're being a bit harsh on Crowe. He did have a run of award nominations, but thats in part due to his performance. I think he tries to pick juicy roles; and there's nothing wrong in that.
Other franchises that come in two installments include Terminator, Shrek and Godfather.
I thought he died in the first one? (not seen Spiderman 2 or 3)
@SethHesio Yeah! I totally agree!!!
I think he's a bit like Timothy West, in the sense that his ragged (but appealing) looks kind of ruled him out of being a Hollywood hearthrob in the way that De Niro was once (sort of).
Wouldn't you class The Last Temptation of Christ as a contender?
I'm intrigued to see the movie Antichrist due to all of the negative reaction it's received in early reviews and people at Cannes booing and jeering the film. Does anyone else think that if Heath Ledger had not played the Joker in The Dark Knight that Willem Defoe would have been a good choice? he certainly has the look lol.
Oh yes! Willem Dafoe would be a great Joker! He's a phenomenal actor anyway.
how can you hate Breaking the Waves????
Stupid plot
Yes indeed, but even great artists have to admit that once their work is "out there" in the world, spectators might not appreciate it in the way they would wish. (Arthur Miller had to concede this once the McCarthy witch hunts were over, and many audiences were responding to THE CRUCIBLE without knowing it was an allegory for 1950s American politics.) There will always be an element of subjectivity when making aesthetic judgments. Kubrick hated Gance's NAPOLEON, but many call it a masterpiece.
Gance's film is great cinema but terrible history. Perhaps that's why Kubrick disliked it. Hero-worshipping dictators wasn't really his thing.
dafoe looks like john bishop here
Straight up how are you going to approach one of two actors in a movie and say “you’re wrong it’s about this”
I like Willem
Willem is like .....this guy
@Bassbait
Hello there Bass. How was Antichrist for you?
LOL i know exactly what you mean...must be the cheek bones.
Perhaps Kermode is simplifying it a bit, which is why Dafoe so readily disagrees with him initially, but you can say all those things they mention the film is about - the nature of grief, relationships, even misogyny I guess, are all there. Remember, the Man in this film attempts to 'cure' Woman's depression by taking control of her, acting as her Doctor, taking her to the woods when she says her second biggest fear is nature, telling her what's best for her etc. The more he attempts to do this, control the situation and Woman, the more manic Woman becomes, to the point where she believes that her whole gender is inherently evil and eventually harms Man and herself.
It's the fox movie
Interesting: I was too young to see THE SHINING back in 1980 (X cert, or 18 as it's called now) When I did see it I liked it, as I was expecting to see "the film with that silly Jack Nicholson performance." And it was the full length 146 minute version with the early scene with the paediatrician, which had been shown by accident on Brit TV (the European version is 116 mins). Most people here don't know that version, which Kubrick had trimmed himself.
Similarly, David Lynch freely admits that he's met people who don't like ERASERHEAD (my all time fave film, and one of Stanley K's faves as well) simply because they find it too slow. I wouldn't expect everyone to like my other favourite "visually driven films" (SHADOWS OF FORGOTTEN ANCESTORS, RATCATCHER, THE CONFORMIST, PERSONA, STALKER (Tarkovsky)). In fact I know they don't. But you just disagree, and move on. My best mate, now a model animator on FRANKENWEENIE, loves BARRY L. I don't.
Did von trier sleep with kermonde’s wife or something?
"For all I know, you could just 'like' his films." The point is, you don't know. You don't have to agree with me, or Mark K, or John Baxter, or Pauline Kael. Just accept there are other opinions which may not tally with your own. If what I'm doing is argumentum ad vericundam, what your doing is illustrating one of MK's own points: "Opinions are like arseholes Everyone's got one, and everyone's convinced theirs is the only one that doesn't stink."
I "lack the sophistication" to appreciate artistic filmmaking? Interesting, considering the fact I submitted a dissertation on David Lynch while I was at Cambridge. And if you think I'm alone in considering O'Neill as miscast, think again: it's a view shared by John Baxter, the author of STANLEY KUBRICK: A BIOGRAPHY, published in the late 1990s, who also knows how to separate "entertainment" from "artistry".
5.45 - willem talks sense. this film isnt about anything other than what its about. ie - its totally subjective.
Why are you so concerned about my comments on Kermode? Is no one allowed to give anything but unanimous praise to this man? I comment on Kermode because he deserves to be taken to task for his arrogant and bullish manner and views, and because it amuses me to do so. As for the 'importance' of my opinions -they are as important as anyone else's. No more, no less. Don't worry about your hero - he's a big boy; he can take it.
Yes I know: I actually like EYES WIDE SHUT, unlike most people I've met. I never said Kubrick was "style over substance". But BARRY LYNDON, for me, comes too close to it. Of course I accept it has its admirers. But my comment was only about BARRY LYNDON, not Kubrick as a filmmaker.
would of loved to heard more from Dafoe in this interview instead of the pseudo film critic
willem dafoe has the creepiest face in cinema,
Ah, for me there's the rub. Even after 11 years, for me there was no attempt to follow T2. Not only did I find the action incredibly boring and inconsequential, but the constant broad comedy was entirely inappropriate. The score sucks too. Last 5 minutes are decent though but IMHO, by then it really is too little too late.
Willem DeDrip
Sorry, but I've never understood the enthusiasm for Kubrick's BARRY LYNDON. It's a dramatically inert, waxwork-like piece which has a terribly miscast Ryan O'Neil as Barry. Beautiful to look at, as you'd expect: but you have to remember that the film only really happened because Kubrick needed a story and script to justify all the pre-production work he'd done on his aborted NAPOLEON project.
I appreciate your talk of film.
Well, uh, I'm happy to loathe and detest and be disgusted at that film by myself - critics seemed to think it was okay too. I dunno - maybe they were comparing it on the Batman and Robin Scale of Awfulness.
The first half of the film is ok but the second half (when they go to the woods) is absolutely rubbish, disgusting, and an insult to the intellect of the viewers.
Most disputing movie I have ever seen.👍
It is sexist
Lame Scouse comic John Bishop has let himself go.
I would much rather see Micheal Moore on the show.
Dafoe outshines Kermode in intelligence here. Kermode is nothing but a prima-donna and not particularly intelligent or illuminating when it comes to cinema.