Antichrist

Antichrist

58% Liked It
liked it

Antichrist

Charlotte Gainsbourg, Willem Dafoe

A grieving couple retreat to 'Eden', their isolated cabin in the woods, where they hope to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage. But nature takes its course and things go from bad to worse...( read more  read more... ).

Id: 11068946

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...


Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews


  • December 23, 2009
    Prologue: Whilst a husband and wife have sex at home, their toddler climbs out a window and falls to his death. In the film, the husband is a therapist and is known simply as He. Similarly, the wife is a researcher into the history of witchcraft and is known simply as She. Note: ...( read more)He is played by Willem Dafoe, who famously portrayed Jesus Christ in Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ".

    Chapter one (Grief): She collapses at her child's funeral and is hospitalised. He takes over her treatment, believing that He can cure her with the miracles of Science. His theory is that she must re-live her deepest fears. She says she associates fear with Eden, a cabin in the woods where she spent the previous summer trying to finish her dissertation on "Gynocide" (the killing of women). They travel to Eden (the Biblical cradle of mankind) and start hiking through the woods. He sees a deer whose stillborn fawn is still partly contained in its womb. At this stage, Mother and Child, Nature and Birth, are still intertwined in an uneasy harmony.

    Chapter two (Pain): He directs her in therapeutic exercises. "I understood that everything that used to be beautiful about Eden was perhaps hideous," she says. "Now I could hear what I couldn't hear before, the cry of all things that are going to die." Out walking, He sees a wounded fox which speaks: "chaos reigns."

    Chapter three (Despair): He confronts her with an autopsy report and explains that their son's feet were deformed because she forced the kid to wear his shoes on the wrong feet. Why was she trying to harm the kid? She knocks her husband unconscious, batters his genitals, masturbates him, and bolts a lathe wheel onto his leg. He manages to crawl into a foxhole where he finds an injured bird. It is unable to fly, he is unable to walk, both creatures bound to the land. Hands reach out from the Earth, man and nature re-embrace.

    Chapter four (The Three Beggars): It is revealed that she was watching their son as he climbed up to the window. She let the kid die. She mutilates her own genitals with scissors. Her scream alerts the deer, fox, and bird, which come to the cabin. Seeing Him about to extract the wheel, she stabs him. He fights back, strangles her, and burns her corpse on a pyre. A modern man of science becomes a medieval witch hunter.

    Epilogue: He limps away from Eden. Human bodies litter the landscape. He watches a host of women, their faces smudged, climb up a wooded hillside. The film ends.

    So what we have here is the product of director Lars Von Trier's serious and prolonged depression. The film is his rejection of all religion, a sort of post-depression admittance of both atheism and hopelessness and also a nightmarish desire on Lars Von Trier's part to penalise himself for all the "wrongs" and "persecutions" of Catholicism. The film calls itself anti-Christ because it is completely against Christ, Willem Dafoe becoming a collapsed version of pseudo-science and Christianity who is symbolically castrated and turned over to a now hostile world, the director fetishizing his newfound awareness of the hungry ugliness of nature, vagina, birth, death- the spiralling ugliness and baseness of life - God symbolically sodomizing the holy child back out of Mary whilst faceless women are resurrected from the very bowels of the Earth.

    Everything is now wrong and we are already in hell. Nature has revealed itself as the relentlessly cruel, profoundly disgusting and indifferent monster it always was. Human nature is even worse, and women are as disturbed and disturbing as anything because they are nature embodied, able to create, bound to the cosmic cycles of menstruation, pregnancy and birth. Discovering this leads the wife to self hatred, self-mutilation and infanticide. Destroy the penis and the vagina and end the spread of Satan's church.

    The film is graphic, but more so for the paradoxes it raises. Men find it hard to reconcile the comforting warmth of the vagina with the monstrosity it becomes at birth within sanitised hospital surroundings. Menstration is itself now ambiguous, the regular heavy flow of blood stymied by a world of plastic bags, air fresheners and pre-cooked meat. Female nature, like all modern nature, is experienced in a bizarre, almost entirely individualised way. Biology, sex, defecation, in their raw and visceral states, have receded back into the realm of the private and the professionally managed. Eyes are shut. Doors are closed.

    When the couple are later kept awake by acorns falling on the roof of the cabin, She tells Him that it takes a hundred years for an oak to reproduce itself just once. The tragedy of the only child dying is the fear of the modern age. Less than a century ago, over-investment in any given child would potentially be a massive waste of time - far better to churn them out and hope that some survive. Nature: brutally pragmatic.

    Antichrist is not, however, straightforwardly an anti-Christian film. It is a heretical film in the Gnostic non-tradition. There is no hope, no salvation, no righting of order, a fact which brought about a profound state Antonioni-like depression in Lars Von Trier. But Despair, Grief and Pain (the 3 encountered animals), as Dafoe's character points out, don't even exist. There is no separating the natural from the unnatural, right from wrong, life from death.

    An X-rated Woody Allen film, director Lars Von Trier failing to produce a new mythography of despair. He serves up "Blair Witch Project" with a sprinkling of Herzog, Antonioni and Dreyer, but fails to film Nature in a way that makes it seem truly bleak and oppressive. Of course the scenes of mutilation and have a visceral power, but this is cheaply achieved.

    Worth two viewings.
  • November 3, 2009
    It didn't take long for Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" to divide audiences. Reports of screenings at Cannes, Toronto, and other international film festivals described situations of people shrieking, fainting, walking out, and booing vociferously. The "genital mutilation" in the fi...( read more)lm's climax has achieved such levels of infamy that it's become impossible to enter the film not knowing what to expect. The question exists, however: is there anything to the film beyond shock value? Considering the fearless performances of the leads and the sumptuous cinematography, I think it's fair to say that "Antichrist" is as beautiful as it is ugly (and, well, it's really ugly).

    The film, divided into six sections (four chapters, a prologue, and an epilogue), begins with a black-and-white hardcore sex sequence. As the lovers, known only as He (Willen Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), are consumed by passion, their only child escapes his crib and tumbles to his death. The horror is the catalyst for what will soon come.

    He, a pompous man with an affinity for psycho-babble, has the idea of retreating to the couple's cabin, Eden, in order to help his wife face her fears. It's not long before we learn that nature is, in fact, Satan's church. In films like "Burden of Dreams" and "Grizzly Man", Werner Herzog articulates that nature is not harmonious but rather chaotic. Von Trier takes that concept to a whole new level.

    I won't go into the graphic description of the events to follow, but I will say this: although I was adequately prepared for the gruesome climax, I was still, quite literally, shaken. The film's pacing and dreamlike atmosphere draw you closer and closer in - when the violence finally unfolds, your only defense is to shake, sweat, and clutch your face in terror. Try as you might, you won't dare look away.

    The film is unabashedly pretentious, about as subtle as a block of wood to the testicles, but you lose yourself to it. Regardless of how one may respond to the last twenty minutes of the film, the first hour or so is as beautifully shot and well-acted as anything released in the past few years. Von Trier dedicates the work to Tarkovsky, and although he doesn't quite achieve that level of utter hypnosis, he comes about as close as any film has this decade.

    "Antichrist" is as shocking as any film i've ever seen, but beyond that it's such a compelling work that it's impossible to dismiss as torture porn. Von Trier's message is hateful, his gore a cruel exploitation of the audience, and yet he has still managed to create a singular work in film history. Whether you like it or not, "Antichrist" is a film you'll never forget. In a time where nearly every new release leaves audiences indifferent, von Trier has given us a welcome shock to the very foundation of cinema.
  • October 26, 2009
    I guess I should note that this is not as much as a review as this is a film that I'll honestly admit that you'll either love it or hate it. Sadly I'm in the absolutely hate it with a burning passion. While some will find it insightful and poetic, though sadly for a film that wor...( read more)ks to push buttons, "Antichrist" suffers from trying way too hard and being simply boring. While I wouldn't call myself a fan of director Lars von Trier, I always appreciated his attempts to take risks but here he throws everything you could possible imagine, where you start to figure out that this dude is no more guilty of reusing ideas then Michael f*cking Bay!
    "Antichrist" also has Bay's understanding of feminist theories. As lovely and talented as Charlotte Gainsbourg is, she is not as much giving a performance as she is a tool for von Trier to get his hatred of women out there. When you consider the fact that Dafoe is perfectly okay and rational, take Gainsbourg off the pills for a couple of hours and all sorts of crazy stuff happens. (Read anything about the film and you'll know what I'm taking about.)
    Now I'll admit that this movie has it strong points. The camera work by Anthony Don Mantle is stunning and as much as I dislike the film, I have to admit that its well made and there were one or two moments that the film is genuinely horrific art.
    Simply there's just not enough of this, a beautiful but ugly and cold hearted film. These flaws could be forgiven had "Antichrist" been more then a shallow and sexist bit of dull self-indulgence but its not. Before I can in full on rant mode, its polarizing film so I can look past my own bias and admit its worth a rental for that reason. Though if you can see anything in the film that I missed, I'll gladly listen. Right now though I stand by my review 100%.
  • October 25, 2009
    It feels pointless to even review Antichrist. I watched this with three other people, my cinematically like-minded boyfriend and two of my best friends, and they all loathed it; I was the film's sole champion. I think that watching it is such a massively personal experience for m...( read more)ost people, and that what you get out of it will stem exactly from what you look for in a film. This much can be inferred from the radically divisive critical and public opinion.

    I will be the first to admit that the film is far from perfect. It is, in fact, a chaotic mess of inchoate ideas and half-realized themes, buoyed by a remarkable aesthetic and two infinitely brave performances. As a stand-alone film, its worth is dubious and questionable, but as an essay in to the rollercoaster auteurial procession of Lars von Trier, it is profoundly more telling. Every major criticism he has garnered through the course of his forty-year career, from his alleged misogyny to his dispassionate narratives to his seemingly inappropriate stylistic choices, are all addressed in full here. Antichrist, first and foremost, trafficks in an unusual theme for a "horror" film - the inextricable link between sex/gender and nature. This theme, though stashed pretty deeply within the plot, is rather simplistic and not really that illuminating in regard to the events that unfold. What is more intriguing is WHY "She" has been brought to feel this way, through some ill-timed fusion of self-loathing, mental illness, and her critical consumption of gynophobic material. Anyway, her eventual dissolution is what has spurred the typical cries of misogyny from the viewing public, and what results is by far the most terrifying harridan to ever grace his filmography. Her hatred for her sex would seem to be a reflection of institutionalized attitudes, or so von Trier goes on to posit, and in that regard we're asked to sympathize with her. She has immersed herself in a very hateful aspect of culture in a time where she is very vulnerable, and perhaps the consequences are misogynistic, but I think of her resultant actions as more of an attack against sexism and patriarchy.

    How does nature figure into it? The theater of operations for this sordid tale is Eden, a cabin surrounded by a lush forest that somehow lies at the heart of Her inexplicable fears. The leap between women and the earth is a short one. I think if von Trier's depiction of nature hadn't been as strong as it is here, the film would have stopped short, but he shades it as something powerful and sinister. The verdant landscapes of Eden are fraught with constant darkness and entanglement, and there is very little sound except for ominous humming and buzzing. The fox, an obvious centerpiece for much of the thematic material here, pretty much brings everything full circle. Women -> nature -> chaos.

    I can't help but feel, though, that even if the film doesn't fully realize its potential, it is still the most interesting thing to have come out this year. Even though my friends hated it, we still had an hour-long debate about it immediately after watching, followed by even more discussion the day after. Perhaps this is provocation for the sake of it, but it is loaned meaning through its source. I'm not sure if this film would have been any more powerful coming from a different and less storied director, but it is what it is, and I for one think it is absolutely fantastic. It's going to offend some people, of course, especially in its last half hour (which I actually think is where the movie loses some steam, believe it or not). Without a doubt, however, I think it's going to inspire just as many. I cannot call this either an endorsement or a warning, because I recognize that this movie may well have resonated with me for entirely personal reasons only. I do think that, even for its incompleteness and its occasional repetition, it is definitely the highlight of 2009 in terms of challenging cinema.
  • October 23, 2009
    ''What do you think is supposed to happen in the woods?''

    A grieving couple retreats to their cabin in the woods, hoping to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage. But nature takes its course and things go from bad to worse.

    Willem Dafoe: He
    Charlott...( read more)e Gainsbourg: She

    Well, well, well...Where to begin with Antichrist? I went into the cinema expecting something totally bizarre, and what I viewed certainly didn't disappoint in the slightest. Antichrist focuses on a couple, whom suffer a terrible tragedy. We experience sequences which lead up to their son dying, and then the husband being a doctor, tries to console his wife out of her grieving state of mind. Sometimes black and white is cleverly used throughout the film which intensifies the mood and feel of the story.

    Quite intelligently, Antichrist divides itself into chapters, each chapter representing an emotional reference of pain or sadness linked with the couple, and of the inevitable evil emerging forth from the truth coming out into the open gradually.
    I find it fascinating that the film has a minimal cast, I mean Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are the only two main roles in the entire film, and their acting and performances really are seriously incredible and beyond words. The second half of Antichrist really descends into shock and disbelief and will have you on the edge of your seat.

    ''A crying woman is a scheming woman.''

    The director and writer of Antichrist, really expresses himself here, his emotions and mind come forth into a glorious palette of film. He really succeeds in getting into the dark recesses of where humanity can go, the sexual desire of man and woman, the lustful and destructive nature of our blackest natures. Antichrist also uses many slow sequences, so artistically and meaningful its actually sometimes like watching a piece of moving art. Scenes in which a deer, a fox and a bird at different times provide symbolic references to religious pagan significance, dating back to the middle ages. The more we discover in Antichrist, the more we find out about the psyche of the man and more importantly the woman too. The forest Eden a playground for evil, the devil and Satan supposedly being in nature. Her research into the history of the woods proves grim, as her deranged thinking of evil in women emerges.

    Overall, Antichrist is a shocking psychological journey evolving into one of insanity, evil and chaos. I mean, a talking fox, the stabbing of a leg with a lethal weight, and the awkward scene of scissors and blood is sometimes so hard to watch, you cannot find yourself looking away. The revelations and answers Antichrist produces satisfy and the ending will provide debate and discussion for years to come. Pleasingly this is a story that requires deep thought, deep patience and an open mind. I love the fact Antichrist will definitely split people and critics down the middle, and when a film can make you either love or hate it, then it definitely should be considered and unprecedented triumph.

    ''A crying woman is a scheming woman.''
  • December 26, 2009
    ¿Cuál es el objetivo de esta película? ¿Qué pretende que veamos y entendamos con lo que nos muestra? ¿Realmente el nombre tiene algo que ver con lo que pasa?

    Sinceramente debo decir que es una de las peores películas que he visto, aburrida al extremo, llena de escenas que no apo...( read more)rtan nada y que sólo buscan causar impacto y desagrado (no encuentro una forma para poder describir cuan extraña, incoherente y repulsiva es esta película). 1/10
  • December 25, 2009
    the opening seen was real good, but after that I really didn't understand much
  • December 24, 2009
    hi any one who is looking for a good review on antichrist please check this link (http://www.flixster.com/user/stopitgoaway). stopitgoaway has given a good review. i watched antichrist but understood the movie only from this rivew. thank u .......
  • December 23, 2009
    I saw this as an indictment of the Church's views on nature, sex, and women, and the dangers inherent in internalizing those attitudes (especially if you are one). My bassist insists it was just a sick movie. Chaos Reigns.
  • December 22, 2009
    Crap the Lord will win over all evil , should not make film that brainwash people

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD