I can't believe Wes Anderson would make a movie without Jason Schwartzman and also allow the narrator for the trailer to call Willem Dafoe "William"

Is it just me or does the guy at 4:33 look like Willem Dafoe? Kind of acts like him too lol.

I vaccinated my daughter, but let's not kid ourselves, *general practitioners* are not the end-all-be-all of medical knowledge and, collectively, they make wrong diagnoses and mistakes all the time. For instance, my family doctor prescribed Flovent to my daughter when she was less than a year old, yet the manufacturer's literature clearly states not to give it to children under a year of age. My father was prescribed a drug for a medical condition which should not be given to patients that have atrial fibrillation - he questioned his cardiologist about this and was told not to take the medication. Good thing he didn't just rely on his other doctor's infallible judgement (and yes the other doctor was aware of his heart condition.)

Most general practitioners are likely not at the forefront of medical research; I'd much rather trust the advice of a medical researcher or specialist in the field. I trust our well-tested vaccines, but that doesn't mean future vaccines might not carry unknown or unexpected risks (see Pandemrix).

I'm not sure how serious they were about not treating patients that refuse to vaccinate their children, but up here in Canada, I'm not sure that would fly. I'm not sure a GP can refuse to treat a parent because they refuse to vaccinate their child; it would be an interesting case to see argued in court. It has something to do with the way the Human Rights Code is defined: physicians must provide services without discrimination, which may be in conflict with their moral beliefs.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'willem dafoe, antichrist, dark, creepy, fox, lons von trier' to 'willem dafoe, antichrist, dark, creepy, fox, lars von trier' - edited by dingens

Tags for this video have been changed from 'willem dafoe, antichrist, dark, creepy, fox' to 'willem dafoe, antichrist, dark, creepy, fox, lons von trier' - edited by enoch

>> ^shuac:

But, but...Willem Dafoe already looks like that.


Oh no, you di'int!

But, but...Willem Dafoe already looks like that.

The choice between NYC and Milwaukee is Mr. Dafoe's real past, in 1980.

>> ^probie:

From the nose down, the announcer looks like Willem Dafoe.


Nah, he looks like the bastard child of Michael Swaim and Vince Shlomi.

From the nose down, the announcer looks like Willem Dafoe.

Am I the only one who thinks Fareed looks an awfully lot like Willem Dafoe?

Both of which Dafoe was in in 2009

1. I can't believe Troy Duffy got the green light for this. Anyone seen the doc on his major meltdown following the first one?

2. I can't believe Clifton Collins, Jr., is in this. He's a champion of pulling off bad B movie action.

3. Bad form, Dafoe. Bad form.

I'll be seeing at least 25 films at the festival this year, though surprisingly, none of them will be Antichrist. It was between that and Broken Embraces; somehow, the new Pedro Almodovar / Penelope Cruz film won out over the Willem Dafoe / genital mutilation film. Don't know how.

i like willem dafoe. I wish i could go to that it sounds awesome

Willem Dafoe's a$$ always seems to get put on display in all the movies he's in. But I can understand that, he has a nice a$$ (even if this is coming from a str8 guy). Besides, we can all tell who will be the primary viewer of this film: women.

This film has all the earmarks of a horror-film-made-for-women. First, there is the a$$ shots of Willem Defoe. Second, there is the sex scenes-mixed-with-violence-and-horror. [I don't know ANY man who likes these kinds of scenes in horror films. Male horror film viewers like raw fear and blood & gore. I know of no men who like the sex + violence motif. I do know female horror film fans who do, though.] Then, there is the 1-on-1 nature of the relationship theme rather than the group-of-people-getting-killed-one-by-one thing that typifies most horror films and appeals mostly to male viewers. There is also the fact that the primary source of horror comes from the two characters inflicting it on each other. Definitely a female-appealing theme since it is relationship-centered more than situationally-centered. There is also the fact the couple is married. Slasher-killer horror films made for general audiences do not have married couples or if they do, they are among several such couples. In any case male viewers don't care about married couples being in the films and probably prefer they not be. Male horror film viewers are usually single and like it that way and don't really want to see married couples on film, since marriage is so... not them. Finally, the P/R around it is "gynocentric". Take a look: http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/16/antichrist-lars-von-trier-feminism
You don't see other horror movies getting reviewed by a whole spate of feminists, do you? And these reviews are far from condemning. In fact they are practically one ad after another for it.

My analysis here is that the director/author had a stroke of marketing genius as well as inspiration, whether it arose from a serious bout of depression or not. This looks very much like it was made for a female audience characterized by women who like the horror genre (but don't want to admit it), and/or who like to watch situations that demonize men while seeing women in powerful but vulnerable (ie, victim) positions. It's perfect. It will make tons of money and probably cost very little to make. This guy will retire on it.

Freaking genius.