Tank Girl. Still one of the best if not the best comedy I have ever seen. That's why I don't give a crap about IMDB ratings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb8OqoMraMI

The Last Airbender, the movie.

I'd have given it a 6.5 to 7 over 10.

It wasn't a mind blowing masterpiece, but it was entertaining.

However, the movie was hit by two groups simultaneously: People who watched the Airbender cartoon and expected the same style (which doesn't translate well in a movie) and people who were disappointed in the director's performance since the Sixth Sense.

I watched about 25% of Antichrist before moving on and the weirdness of the movie hit me right at the beginning.

They are having a fairly normal sex scene and then, the camera does a closeup on the coitus.

Ok, I'll admit, the first thought that came to mind when I saw this (coming from an heterosexual man) was: this can't be William Dafoe's penis.

Surely, having live sex in front of the camera isn't something that A-List actors actually sign for, especially Hollywood actors who need to make a living in relatively conservative U.S.

Definitely a double. Ok.

But then, the other thing that pops in my mind is: Why?

I know that they are having sex and judging by the motions of their bodies, I'm having a pretty good idea about what's happening below, enough so that I don't need an illustration, especially since I'm watching your movie to be entertained, not to wank off.

Because it is art if you show a wang.

I think it's a fantastic film, and way, way ahead of its time in many ways. Not to be hipsterish, but I don't really like the idea of "best" in things like this. I really don't know how to compare Citizen Kane, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Evil Dead 2 - not saying those are my top films, just films I like very much.

Why show the knife entering the body? Why show the effects of the gun shot? Why show the decapitation? And so on. At least with a close up of sex, you're being explicit about a positive, healthy and normal thing, rather than being explicit about something awful, disgusting, and hopefully not part of your day-to-day life.

Because it isn't natural. When looking at sex from an outside perspective (or even when you are the active participant), you don't see a close up on the crotch action like that.

This is an artificial perspective introduced by porn.

And no, a closeup on the gore showing us all the details while it's happening is not more natural and looks equally ridiculous (though it is more common, I think it separates good movies from gore fests).

It might be artificial, but it's also artificial to see the Earth viewed from space, or to see a camera tracking after a flight of birds from the same altitude as them, or in fact anything that's CG or special effects, like seeing a giant ape climbing the Empire State, or dinosaurs attacking Sam Neil, but none of those would seem shocking or offensive to some people like seeing two human body parts making contact.

Porn is just film footage of people having sex, all movies are just film footage of someone doing something. Though somehow, filmed footage of sex is more shocking that filmed footage of torture or decapitation to some people (largely Americans, generally people in very religious countries).

Actually, no. Overly graphical footages of torture and decapitations make me uneasy.

They have their place, just like sex scenes, but they need to be done right.

I like it when the directors/producers takes a step back and allow us to make what we will of their work.

I dislike it when the director introduces himself between me and my movie and shouts "Boys, they're fucking! Aren't you excited? I wish it was me in there doing this! Don't you wish it was you too? Of course you do!".

Same thing with gore ("yeah! Look at all those heads flying! That's right baby! Yeah!").

There is an art about portraying an idea or emotion without being too obvious or crude about it.

Whenever I end up thinking about what the director's desires instead of the characters' as I'm watching something, I know he isn't doing it right.

Similar thing with authors.

Apart from the cinematograpy, the story was pretty bland and oddly random. Until you watch a documentary or read about William Randolph Hearst. Then it blows your mind.

Star Wars I-III.
Yeah, they're not nearly as good as the Old Trilogy. Yes, the dialogue can be a bit jarring. Of course there are a lot of plot holes.
But they're not as bad as everyone says it is. They are still nice movies I pop in now and then.

Postman.
I've only seen it once many years ago. I was not impressed, but I didn't think it was bad. Just a pretty standard post-apocalyptse movie. Nothing special, nothing horrendous. Just "okay".

Hah...no...that one got flack for all the right reasons.

I can't really think of many such movies, because I tend to stay away from the shit.
I can name a few that get more viewership than they deserve though ;p

The good movies I know of that are disliked by some for...reasons are Avatar and the new Tron movie. People usually don't like them because they miss some elements, or completely miss the point.

What else...Sucker Punch. Which is great if you got the point of the movie.

The Chronicles of Riddick. I am so tired of The Heroes Journey it's nice to see a film that ignores major portions of that whole formula entirely.

Plus, the movie is just weirdly awesome.

Piranha 3D was actually way better than I would have expected... as a stupid gore fest with nudity. Still, it was a well done stupid gore fest with nudity.

I haven't watched Antichrist, but from your description I have trouble figuring out what exactly it is that was bothering you. Were you turned on or did you feel uneasy? And in case it's the latter (because obviously you found it "weird"), what makes you think the director's intention was for you to be turned on and not to feel uneasy? Like I said, I haven't watched the movie and chances are that I wouldn't like it either, but I always imagined it as some kind of "horror" movie in a grotesque way, and if that's true, an explicit sex scene that alienates you from sex instead of entertaining you or turning you on would make perfect sense.

Anyway, the only Lars von Trier movie that I liked so far was "The Boss of it All", although (or because?) that's a rather unspectacular one without outrageous provocations for their own sake.

Yeah, not really. Citizen Kane's novelty value mainly came from marrying German Expressionism with the Golden Age of Hollywood. For all the movie's triumphs, its innovativeness is grossly blown out of proportion - and very often by gamers, interestingly. It seems that there are two clichés that get mentioned whenever the cinema is discussed within a gaming context... Uwe Boll and Citizen Kane.

Anyway. Regarding the OP. What's the people's opinion of Last Year in Marienbad? Seems that, while regarded as a masterwork by some, the film (very unjustly in my opinion) arouses derision and outright hatred in others.

Great movie. I must be one of the few people who liked it better than Pitch Black.

I wasn't turned on, because I wasn't in a frame of mind to be turned on.

I was watching the movie and trying to take it all in.

Can't really do that if my mind is fixated on mating now can I?

Uneasy might not have been the right description for it either.

More like: "It that really William Dafoe's privates? No way... in the U.S, that would be the death of his career" and after that "This feels gratuitous. Great, I'm watching the director's sexual fantasy. Hope he wasn't jerking off while filming this."

I suppose the last thought might have been somewhat arousing had the director been a woman.