Antichrist (2009)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Coxxie M

  
  21 Grams. Pet Semitary. Don't Look Now. Rabbit Hole. Monster's Ball. Antichrist. The greatest family films... for the whole family!

• Mark W

  
  By his own admittance, director Lars Von Trier's intention with this film was not exactly how it turned out. He tried to turn his hand at making a genre horror film. Much like trying to make a musical with "Dancer in the Dark", he can't help but imbue it with his… More
  By his own admittance, director Lars Von Trier's intention with this film was not exactly how it turned out. He tried to turn his hand at making a genre horror film. Much like trying to make a musical with "Dancer in the Dark", he can't help but imbue it with his usual intelligence and artistic flourishes that take it beyond a mere genre picture. Von Trier doesn't quite do genre. After the accidental death of their child, a therapist (Willem Dafoe) and his wife (Charlotte Gainsbourg) - listed in the credits only as "He" and "She" - retreat to a cabin in the perhaps haunted woods to recover. Eventually, they turn savagely on each other and bloody mayhem ensues. There are many similarities with this and Von Trier's most accessible film to date "Melancholia". Not only in the exploration of mental illness in his leading female character but also in his recurrent theme of despair and chaos and his strikingly stylish, slow-motion prologue and use of music. Has Von Trier settled on a particular style now? If so, it's a style that will serve him well. During the making of this, the director was himself suffering from depression (which was further explored in "Melancholia") and it shows. You can see his understanding of the isolation of mental health not to mention the false hope in any saviour from it. This is brilliantly portrayed by two exceptionally brave performances from his actors. Gainsbourg in particular delivers one of the most daring pieces of acting since Harvey Keitel in "Bad Lieutenant". The subject matter may be one that would be overlooked come awards season but she was certainly deserving of recognition. It's a stunningly shot film with atmosphere and creepiness in abundance and disturbing images of the cruelty of nature. In some ways, Von Trier's realisation reminded me of dutch artist Hieronymus Bosch and his fantastical paintings. In particular, Bosch's most famous "The Garden of Earthly Delights" which depicts Adam and Eve in a wondrous garden before descending to Hell where punishments are handed out for sinners. The fact that Von Trier has his characters' unravelling in a remote place called 'Eden' further fuels this. Be warned, there are brutal and unbearable violent scenes, that I'm surprised the censors overlooked. However, it's still an extraordinary, surreal and highly provocative journey. Just another day at the office for Lars Von Trier then...

• John H

  
  This movie marks the 100th film I've seen released in the year 2009. Being the film that marks such a special ocassion why don't I take the time to review the independent phenomenon that has received a creditable cult follow and found it's way into the Criterion… More
  This movie marks the 100th film I've seen released in the year 2009. Being the film that marks such a special ocassion why don't I take the time to review the independent phenomenon that has received a creditable cult follow and found it's way into the Criterion Collection's library. This is... Antichrist.

• Emile T

  
  As much as Lars Con Trier has total control on his own visual style, Antichrist is a movie that is very hard to appreciate because there isn't an once of respect in any of its frames; none for the characters and none for the viewer. However, for the ones who will be able to put… More
  As much as Lars Con Trier has total control on his own visual style, Antichrist is a movie that is very hard to appreciate because there isn't an once of respect in any of its frames; none for the characters and none for the viewer. However, for the ones who will be able to put that aside, it is a piece of art that is completely astounding and so disturbing that it's almost thrilling. If it wasn't for Trier's unique and visionary style, the film would still be worth the watch for the performance of its two actors, especially from the unbelievable Gainsbourg.

• Tim S

  
  My original thoughts upon my first viewing of Lars von Trier's Antichrist were positive, but something was holding me back critically and I didn't quite understand why at the time. With further viewings, I've been picking up on more layers of themes and how masterfully… More
  My original thoughts upon my first viewing of Lars von Trier's Antichrist were positive, but something was holding me back critically and I didn't quite understand why at the time. With further viewings, I've been picking up on more layers of themes and how masterfully the film is all put together. In other words, I think I can be much more positive about it this time around without any lingering ambiguity. What's great about the film is that while it does raise a lot of questions in your mind while you watch it (and after), you can walk away from it with a multitude of different perspectives - all depending on what you take away from it personally. Is it a simple pscyhological horror tale about a woman losing her mind over the death of her son, or is it just a template for viewer interpretation and applicability that likely comes off as pretentious? The response is totally up to you, but I prefer to examine the questions that it raises in my mind about it, rather than simply settling on one solitary viewpoint. I can't say that I completely understood it when I first saw it, and today I can't say that I still totally understand it. But for some reason, not only am I drawn to it but I'm fascinated by it. It's quite a beautifully-shot esoteric masterpiece that truly is a work of modern art (which likely has a lot to do with it). It disturbs me somewhere deep down in my soul, but I can't look away. Despite the graphic shots of nudity and gore peppered throughout with some mind-bending images that will never go away, I prefer to think of it as simply a thought-provoking work - one that will have you pondering its meaning long after you've seen it. Be forewarned though, this film has divided its viewers in half - you either love it or hate it, and for some sadistic reason, I've grown to love it. Chaos reigns.

• Liam G

  
  Lars Von Trier's gruesome horror film definitely pushes the boundaries of the genre and proves pretty unique. Unfortunately, unlike say, The Tree of Life, it is an ambitious film that falls flat a lot of the time. It proves a pretty hollow experience throughout and left me cold… More
  Lars Von Trier's gruesome horror film definitely pushes the boundaries of the genre and proves pretty unique. Unfortunately, unlike say, The Tree of Life, it is an ambitious film that falls flat a lot of the time. It proves a pretty hollow experience throughout and left me cold at the end. It doesn't give us a reason to care about the things that happen to He and She and half way through I didn't care anymore about what occured. That said, it does feature beautiful cinematography and a brave performance from Charlotte Gainsbourg. ''Antichrist'' ultimately does prove an insane movie-watching experience and one of the craziest I've seen, but as a film itself it doesn't really work.

• Veronique K

  
  i watched this with the anticipation that it would be boring, but i was also extremely curious why its viewrs are separated into bipolarization, the loather and the lover. also, i have seen two people doing presentations on this movie in two conferences. thus, i assume i would just… More
  i watched this with the anticipation that it would be boring, but i was also extremely curious why its viewrs are separated into bipolarization, the loather and the lover. also, i have seen two people doing presentations on this movie in two conferences. thus, i assume i would just give a look to see whether it really has something to say or it's just another incomprehesible avant-gardist work which projects a pretentious air of pround-ness, but by actuality, just a self-indulgent work which is not meant to be understood by anyone but the author himself (lars von trier)...and it turns out to be the former. lars von trier has a really convulted way of story-telling in his cinematic style, but my purpose here is to elucidate. therefore, i just depict the movie's story-time (the actual event in linear order..narrative time is how the story is told, the way it is presented in the movie): a woman, whose husband is psychoanalyst, has her child fall from the window and killed during lovemaking with her husband because she doesn't stop from sex to keep the infant from moving toward the window. after the tragedy, her sanity is teetering on the borderline of hysteria and she internalizes this sense of guilt with the content of the academic dissertation she was working on while the child was still alive. the dissertation is about gendercide (mass killings on women in 16th century) which is inclined to believe that the essence of woman is evil and woman-kind should be eradicated for the sake of human goodness. hence, this woman inflicted with hysteria deteriorates into raging paranoia while her psychoanalyst husband is striving to treat her himself by bringing her into the woods which is the fountainhead of her fear. her conditions decline according to the chronic stages of gender-cide mythology: grief, pain and despair. at last, she even performs the sadomasochistic gimmicks she acquires from the researches she's made upon her husband and herself. her madness eventually becomes so repulsively compelling that her psychoanalyst husband has to slaughter her himself and torch her corpse in flaming fire just to rinse off these nightmarish memories within the forest, a.k.a. nature as the church of satan. SPOILER: she even uses a scissor to chop off her clitoris. the movie is a mockery toward psychoanalysis, which has been criticized as phallocentric, a discourse composed by man, a methodology to evaluate the patients through a male-centered perspective. one notable notion about perverse killings in the realm of psychoanalysis is, that man inflicts the violence in the eye of THE OTHER (any form of god, an abstract form omnipotent gazer) upon others while woman inflicts violence upon herself in the eye of the other (any bystander who witnesses her cruety against herself). "antichrist" is a parody toward this gendering notion within psychoanalysis, which is deemed by some as misogynism. the other, in the case of "antichrist", is the husband. in one scene, she requests him to hit her during sex, then the couple wind up fornicating in the wild while lots of ghastly hands and tree branches occur simultaneously to fabricate an eerie image. she needs him to be there to witness her violence against herself, and his eventual eradication of the mad wife is committed under the gaze of THE OTHER. from this aspect, it is my belief that lars von trier must be amateurish enthusiast for psychoanalysis, and he illustrates those psychoanalytic ideas through cinematic visuals in the deranged sequence of the mind of schizophreniac patients. within the binary opppositions of genders, in other words, the essentialist perception of genders, woman represents nature while man stands for culture. in the case of film noir, femme fatale occupies the position of culture while the good woman who redeems the noir anti-hero posits in the spot of nurturing nature. just observe some scenes in classic noir, femme fatale always appears in the urban surroundings like night-clubs and public lounges. that is to say, woman shouldn't infiltrate into the realm of man, which is culture, and woman with culture is dangerously phallic as she might do harm unto the man as well as herself. but in the case of "antichrist", the evil of femininity is located within the nature while the man as the psychoanalyst, surely represents the culture. it erases the dichotomic demarcations within the stereotypes of good and bad femininities by generalizing that all woman-kind is derived from nature and nature is evil (church of satan). furthermore, sexually unbridled woman is hazardous just as nature without human appropriation is perilous, such as typhoon, earthquake, tsunami..etc. during this film, the woman conducts herself like a sex maniac who utilizes sex as alleviator at the paramount of her delirium. that symbolizes the foresight of an upcoming disaster once nature is running amok without the endeavorments of human moderations. in their last sex, she even attempts to cripple him, and the blood semen ejaculated from the wounded man in coma is the expellant gush of death. ejaculated semen during sex, by its archaic meaning, means life because each sex bears the potentiality of producing a life. onanism creates no life, and the woman maneuvers to induce from the man in the action of hand-sex is no essence of life. on the contrary, it's the essence of death. does anyone who's seen it understand the metaphor of the last scene in the movie? in my comprehesion, the man plucks a plant filled with buds (i don't know how to describe the term correctly), and he gazes it in wonderments. then a group of young girl emerge from the hillside to leave him in perplexion. the plant of buds is the metaphor of seed-bearing matrix. after he finally murders his wife, in the moment of his foremost disgust with womankind, females just appear all around him to leave him dumbfound within the maze of nature. that means, you simply could not escape this ubiquitious existence of womankind, if you consider the female as evil, the essence of evil shall flow all around you to put you into perennial state of incessant nightmares. (ps) i laughed when i read from pamel d, whose review says stuff like who wants to see nudity of willaim dafoe and charlotte gainsbourg, and she demeans roger ebert for praising the bravery in sex scenes of anitchrist while underrating isabella rosellini in blue velvet. my feelings after finally seeing antichrist is: i think both blue velvet and antichrist are good in different ways, and david lynch is a comparatively more glamorous by style and he favors to use really good-looking women as his femme fatales and his sex scenes are always disturbingly enjoyable. i do agree, ebert underrates blue velvet. but i must admit gainsbourge's sacrifice is bigger because who would really think this woman is sexy after watching this?! (cutting off clitoris, give me a break, i wanna puke) she's somehow a much much less glamorous woman by comparison with rosellini, and she destorys the last possible bit of feminine charm by uglifying herself even more! i assume, most people. after watching blue velvet, would consider isabella rosellini very sensual and alluring, goddess of sex to some, but no one would really think like that after antichrist (if you do, you might have a problem. lol.) in my opinion, i consider the sex in antichrist is meant to be disgusting, and that's why trier casts william dafoe and charlotte gainsbourge to de-eroticize sex!!! it's meant to be un-sexy, repulsive, appalling and completely a turn-off! if the sex looks tasty, you might not wanna think of any of those metaphoric conceptualizations within this picture after being so mesmerized by the sex.

• Sergio G

  
  It is a very disturbing movie. Rated R, no doubt about it. Psycho-horror is the right genre I believe. I personally loved the art conception, photography and the soundtrack. The story is very weird and keeps you in suspense through REALLY disturbing scenes. The acting is amazing and… More
  It is a very disturbing movie. Rated R, no doubt about it. Psycho-horror is the right genre I believe. I personally loved the art conception, photography and the soundtrack. The story is very weird and keeps you in suspense through REALLY disturbing scenes. The acting is amazing and portraits a different conception of Hell. We are indeed evil by nature. However, some of the scenes involving the fox, deer and crow seems out of place. Is different for sure. I recommend it but PLEASE: No kids (sex, violence, disturbing images)

• Dan S

  
  A daring, disturbing, and unnerving depiction of a couple (Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg) torn apart after their child is killed in a terrible accident. The first hour features some beautiful imagery, brilliant pacing, and fine acting, coupled with a last half hour that rips that… More
  A daring, disturbing, and unnerving depiction of a couple (Willem Dafoe, Charlotte Gainsbourg) torn apart after their child is killed in a terrible accident. The first hour features some beautiful imagery, brilliant pacing, and fine acting, coupled with a last half hour that rips that methodical pacing asunder and throws some torture-porn aspects into the equation, leaving a large chunk of it nearly unwatchable. This is really a hard movie to rate. It has some great things to say about the evolution of women over-time (or de-evolution), which could understandably be seen as misogynistic, a tag director Lars von Trier has undoubtedly been slapped with more than a few times in his career. The last half hour is not very well put together, some things flat-out just don't make sense and the tie-in that humanity has with nature oversteps its bounds at one particular instance near the film's violent climax. However, you have to give von Trier credit for being so bold, even if he goes bananas in the last frame.

• Jameson W

  
  Not for everyone...it's one of the most difficult films I have ever seen. Visually disturbing, but well-done. Gainsbourg is incredible...she put SO much into this character.

• Steven C

  
  Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" is probably the most extreme portrait of grief ever committed to film. The film is also openly misogynistic. For as nasty as the film can get (genital mutilation, graphic sexual content, dismembered animals, a child's death), you… More
  Lars von Trier's "Antichrist" is probably the most extreme portrait of grief ever committed to film. The film is also openly misogynistic. For as nasty as the film can get (genital mutilation, graphic sexual content, dismembered animals, a child's death), you simply cannot take your eyes off the screen. Willem Dafoe is good here, but he is outmatched by the fearless Charlotte Gainsbourg. "Antichrist" is a violent, uneasy deconstruction of violence, nature, grief and the inherent evil in women. If you are willing to examine these themes objectively there are some satisfying moments, but if you watch the film subjectively, it's a horrifying, troubling experience.

• E.J. B

  
  I've never liked Lars Von Trier. From Dear Wendy to Dogville, Von Trier is nothing more than a pretentious, ignorant excuse for an artist who really wants to be the next Ingmar Bergman. I don't think Von Trier would have a problem with me saying that either; he'll… More
  I've never liked Lars Von Trier. From Dear Wendy to Dogville, Von Trier is nothing more than a pretentious, ignorant excuse for an artist who really wants to be the next Ingmar Bergman. I don't think Von Trier would have a problem with me saying that either; he'll probably think he's done something right in provoking such extreme hatred out of me. Truth is, I don't think his films make any sense. Since I'm reviewing Antichrist, let's talk about it. The film's detractors have often criticized it as misogynist. I don't think the film is misogynist. It's more about human nature as inherently evil and destructive. Essentially, if you put two people in a room, sooner or later they will kill each other. Antichrist is the Genesis creation story retold as a horror film. Von Trier doesn't name the couple (the only two characters in the film), so they are essentially Any-Man and Any-Woman. The cabin they retreat to is called Eden, and yes, the setting is ironically desolate, decayed, and debilitating. But the mistake Von Trier makes is that both his characters are essentially nothing but evil. He is a selfish, sexist pig who thinks He knows what's best for His wife, while She is "Hate Incarnate". She watches her son fall out of a window to his death, but does nothing as she's in the middle of having sex. She believes women are inherently evil because human nature is evil and nature controls the female body. Eventually She snaps at Him, and the last twenty minutes are a gruesome bloodbath that does not invoke sympathy or disgust - maybe disgust if you can't stand gore. But why do we care about these people? They're not reflective of real people. They represent Ideals. So, right away, Von Trier's "message" is nul and void. Evil exists, but what's disturbing about the original Creation story is how Evil triumphs over Good. When Good is completely absent, who cares what happens? Maybe my ideas conflict with Von Trier and I can't put them aside to understand him. But that's okay, cuz I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about. YouTube how he just got banned from Cannes for calling himself a Nazi and you might just agree with me.

• Fernando Rafael Q

  
  We all have our own personal reasons to watch movies. I love being moved and stirred and touched by film, but what I ultimately search for is entertainment. I mean, isn't that the whole point of film-watching? Antichrist provides very little in way of entertainment, but it still… More
  We all have our own personal reasons to watch movies. I love being moved and stirred and touched by film, but what I ultimately search for is entertainment. I mean, isn't that the whole point of film-watching? Antichrist provides very little in way of entertainment, but it still holds a strange, hypnotic power, while redefining the word "harrowing". The Prologue to Antichrist is a gorgeous, devastating silent short film but this art-house take on torture porn, as a whole, is by no means an enjoyable experience. Willem Dafoe is solid, but Charlotte Gainsbourg is truly terrifying in one of the finest displays of talent in recent years. Easily the most disturbing film I've ever watched.

• Keiko A

  
  Directed by Lars von Trier and Starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg. So am I the only one who truly said "Antichrist" was my number 1 movie for 2011? And by "2011" We finally got a release only last month, I had never seen any other film by director… More
  Directed by Lars von Trier and Starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg. So am I the only one who truly said "Antichrist" was my number 1 movie for 2011? And by "2011" We finally got a release only last month, I had never seen any other film by director "Lars von Trier" And I was eager to have a look. First movie disappointed. [IMG]http://i53.tinypic.com/34ec2eo.jpg[/IMG] Antichrist is divided into four chapters, a prologue and epilogue. During the prologue a nameless couple, who are billed as He (Willem Dafoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg), are having sex, leaving their baby son unattended. The baby climbs out of its cot, reaches a window and then falls to its death. Both of the parents grieve heavily for their son but it is She who is most affected, slipping deeper into depression. He, who is a therapist, disregards her doctor and the medication given to her. Instead He decides to take her to a cabin in the woodlands, a place called Eden, where She was last with their child, trying to finish her writing. He attempts to treat her himself with a number of psychological exercises, but there is something terribly ominous brewing inside Eden. The first chapter to Lars Von Trier's Antichrist entitled 'Grief' remains compelling because of its authenticity and gritty sense of realism. The aesthetic qualities of the film and Gainsbourg's performance craft scenes of emotion that are utterly believable. Named Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival, Gainsbourg displays her grief and her anger with a real sense of heart. Of the two characters in the film she has the much grander role. The muted colours in these scenes, along with the dim grey lighting and Von Trier's erratic hand-held camera-work, further contribute to a reflection of her isolation and her heartache. It is a rather personal film for Von Trier as he is believed to have written the script as a means of therapy for his own depression. The aesthetics throughout the film are equally as impressive during the Eden sequences. The film was primarily shot in Germany and there are some visually haunting moments that both unique and beautiful. A scene where She's voice over is heard over the top of a painting-like representation of the woods, as her ghostly figure appears in the background, is just an incredible sight to behold. Von Trier has stated that a lot of his inspiration for the film has been derived from the horror genre and he aptly controls the tension through the authenticity of the woodlands, the use of near silence and the slow tracking movements of the actors. The continuation of the hand-held camera in the forest creates a sense of a detached body from the actors, almost as though someone is watching and stalking them. In one moment a wide shot films He walking through the forest. The camera pans quickly to the left of the screen and then centres back on him, almost gesturing him to move towards the rustling leaf and discover something very disturbing. Aesthetically, this is an intense and powerfully constructed film. [IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/14wrbkk.jpg[/IMG] However, as with Dancer in the Dark (Still need to see), the film's narrative becomes increasingly contrived over its duration, to the point where it defies all logic. That a therapist would treat his own partner, disregard her medication and take her to a place as isolating as Eden - regardless of what it means to her past - is a contrivance that audiences will have to decide on themselves. It is also when Von Trier unleashes the films fury and condemnation for these characters and the landscape that the narrative self-destructs. All of the emotion that was captured in those quiet, painful scenes is lost to moments of sheer absurdity. When He does find that rustling leaf he discovers a brutally wounded fox that stares at him, opens its mouth and then says to him in a demonic voice 'chaos reigns'. The ghastly animal imagery throughout the film such as this and also deer with a dead foetus still attached to it, contributes to an increasingly unpleasant narrative that detaches itself from the realism and the personal grief felt by the two central characters. The detachment is felt most significantly in the last two chapters of the film, which contain some of the most sickening and repelling acts of violence and sexual aggression in recent years of cinema. These moments are almost unwatchable and detract from the emotion and the conflict felt by She because of how absurd it is and because of just how awful it is to witness. The film attempts to attribute her behaviour to being possessed by nature, which is said to be a satanic form. Yet whether anyone will actually find that credible, in justifying such contempt for humanity and human suffering, is extremely unlikely. It is through these two chapters and beyond that the film is also increasingly uncertain about what it is saying in regards to women themselves. Von Trier does not think that his film is misogynistic and does not claim to be one either. His poor relations with his actresses over his career and the way a woman is physically and emotionally destroyed in this film, inspired by the execution of women in the 16th century, makes it difficult not to see his disregard and lack of respect for them. Von Trier has claimed in interviews that this is a representation of a woman's conflict with herself, and though this might be true, he offers his character here, just like in Dancer in the Dark, no outlet or redemption. He condemns them and sentences the, leaving his film as increasingly nasty and unsympathetic towards grief and anxiety. Antichrist is aesthetically and emotionally an interesting and intense film for its first two chapters. Yet because of Von Trier's persistence for publicity and attention through horrid acts of violence, this is a film that remains wildly distracted, unfocused and wholly unlikable. The self-proclaimed 'best film director in the world' is not interested in finding resolution for these characters through any form of character development. It is because of this that he weakens his supposed exploration of inner conflict in favour of his own needs to shock, manipulate and outrage his audience. As a nasty exercise in gratuitous sex and violence, this is a film to be avoided. Keiko's score 45-100

• Michael S

  
  Wow... a film hasn't left me with such a divided and confused opinion since I saw "SALO" for the first time! Like that film, scoring "Antichrist" in the usual fashion just isn't possible. I can't even say if I liked or disliked it. What I can say is… More
  Wow... a film hasn't left me with such a divided and confused opinion since I saw "SALO" for the first time! Like that film, scoring "Antichrist" in the usual fashion just isn't possible. I can't even say if I liked or disliked it. What I can say is it's utterly beautiful and absolutely repulsive; it defines self indulgence but I just couldn't look away; It's so cold and nihilistic yet effected me on an emotional level; it's in my head and it'll be there for a long time! "Antichrist" will have an impact on you (I don't know if that's a good thing) which I guess was a big part of Von Trier's twisted intention. Once you've seen it, you'll be in it's grasp for days. For that reason alone I can't deny the film's power. But I still can't say if it's a great film or a terrible one.

• Steve K

  
  While I won't claim to fully understand it, or even claim that is a great film, no other cinematic experience from last year stuck with me as much as this one. It truly crawls under your skin and demands to be discussed.

• David L

  
  It sounds perverse to even express enjoyment of Lars von Trier's "Antichrist," as bleak and twisted a portrait of misery as any committed to celluloid or canvas, the most descriptive compliment I can pay the film is 'fearless.' "Antichrist" disarms… More
  It sounds perverse to even express enjoyment of Lars von Trier's "Antichrist," as bleak and twisted a portrait of misery as any committed to celluloid or canvas, the most descriptive compliment I can pay the film is 'fearless.' "Antichrist" disarms its audience early, with an incredible high-shutter close-up of an erect penis before penetration, and becomes exponentially more shocking and less tasteful from there. The act of intercourse between He and She (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg portray the unnamed characters) serves as the impetus for the cryptically metaphoric story; their passionate lovemaking is juxtaposed with the death of their child, who falls from a window in their negligence. Gainsbourg's character suffers from a crippling postmortem depression, including an implacable fear of death itself. She stifles these imbalances sexually, with and against the better judgment of her husband. Dafoe's Man is a psychologist, taking it upon himself to dispel his wife's fear through assimilation with the source of her overwhelming anxiety. Von Trier's portrayal of Woman has instigated accusations of misogyny. She is emotional, irrational, and helpless, with the interpretation of the latter half of the film, during which She becomes a decided antagonist, being that She is the 'Antichrist' of the title. The character is demeaning, perhaps, but I don't feel von Trier's depiction of man is any more flattering. Predicated on cold logic and condescending passive-aggression, He is incapable of love. He takes Her to the forest (they call it 'Eden'), where the two have a decrepit cabin. The woods are filled with death, dying and decaying creatures, and as He begins treating her fear, succumbs to it himself. The film, full of ghastly, macabre photography, seems to exist in a world without good. Any moment of happiness or even placidity in "Antichrist" is overshadowed by manipulation or mutilation. The movie makes an abrupt about-face halfway through as the control dynamic shifts between the characters, and von Trier devilishly steps off the low end of the seesaw, leaving his audience to feel the impact. What follows is unrepentantly gory, culminating with Gainsbourg's character performing a self- circumcision with a pair of scissors. What symbolic meaning is intended in the literal removal of Her womanhood is never revealed, and the closest the film comes to enlightening its audience is in the revelation of a thesis project She had written on the correlation between Satan and nature, and nature and woman. Still, to suggest She, or woman generally, is the antichrist seems a deceptively easy interpretation to write the film off on. The antichrist, if anything, seems be the architect of this world. Von Trier has been miserly in offering answers to those confused or offended by his film, but the less he shapes his audience's interpretation, the more potent "Antichrist" becomes. It ebbs at the inky corners of the mind like an inexplicable piece of dark magic; von Trier would rather bewilder than satisfy. His efforts make for a particularly brutal, challenging psychological horror film that will likely dissatisfy anyone in the theater expecting to be conventionally frightened. The film asks a lot of its audience in indulging in a world of complete, restless unhappiness, and many would rather label it as derogatory or exploitative, when its clear the film's primary intention is exhibiting absolute inhumanity. "Antichrist" is like the film equivalent of Francisco Goya's "Saturn Devouring his Son." And in that respect, von Trier's film is nearly flawless. Minor distractions like the violence, which feels too familiar in the age of "Saw" to deliver the appropriate impact, and the aggressive, borderline pretentious cinematography occasionally upstage the story, but cannot detract much from the power of the experience. That the film is powerful is, I think, inarguable, as every opinion on the piece has been defended passionately. Regardless of where yours falls, however, "Antichrist" is the sort of film that sticks to you. Love it or hate it, but you won't forget it, and that's all truly fearless storytelling can hope for.

• Shauna R

  
  This is definitely a film that will divide viewers and I would only recommend this to admirers of Lars Von Trier's previous work or hardcore film fans who would appreciate a piece of film-making like this. Otherwise avoid it like the plague. I like the way Von Trier presents a… More
  This is definitely a film that will divide viewers and I would only recommend this to admirers of Lars Von Trier's previous work or hardcore film fans who would appreciate a piece of film-making like this. Otherwise avoid it like the plague. I like the way Von Trier presents a film much like a novel, the prologue, chapter headings and epilogue make it unique and elegantly layered. Yet that could not prevent the film from disturbing the hell out of me, it has a very bleak feel and contains some harrowing images of nature and gut-wrenching scenes of sex. It must be applauded that the subtle use of horror is refreshing when compared with mainstream horror films and adds to the film's vulgar originality. Praise goes to Dafoe and Gainsbourg for their raw portrayals of tragically damaged human beings, particularly Gainsbourg as many actresses would be unable to do what her role required. Antichrist makes for difficult viewing that towards the end builds tensely in crescendo and shock value and reaches a fascinating yet awful climax.

• _kelly .

  
  It's a crime to put this much effort and talent into crafting something so beautiful and filmically superior and yet be so devoid of lasting meaning to the audience. This is one of those films that only makes sense, and ultimately matters, to its director. To everyone else, it is… More
  It's a crime to put this much effort and talent into crafting something so beautiful and filmically superior and yet be so devoid of lasting meaning to the audience. This is one of those films that only makes sense, and ultimately matters, to its director. To everyone else, it is just watching an exercise in visual beauty and to pretend that it has any deeper significance is to indulge the director's masturbatory act and step in for the delights of being bukkaked by him. Assigned one half of a star for achieving high standards of shock with gore (proven to shock by its critical reception), and given another star and a half for its cinematography and overall visual flair. There is only the simple explanation for this plot, no real hidden significance in the abundance of symbolic images. She and He are having sex when their child falls from a window and dies. She blames herself (and rightly so as is revealed late in the film) for her son's death, and He, being a psychotherapist, tries to adopt her as his patient and help her mend her complex grief. She sees him as unemotional towards their child's death, and during her descent into madness, attempts to rectify her mistake, punishing her desire for sex by removing Her and His tools of sexual congress, and attempting to reveal to Him how He and their intercourse are the things weighing her down by bolting a rock through his leg. Moral of the story: If you see your kid about to jump out a window, stop banging and save him or you will go batshit crazy grieving him and your marriage will end in brutal suicidal murder. As far as this film's label for infamous misogyny, I think the director was addressing prior accusations against him of being a misogynist by showing an example where a woman believes, very erroneously, the myth of misogyny and allows it to kill her. In that sense, I think this is an extremely feminist film; it shows the absurdity of misogyny via the extreme, and gets labelled by the confused crowd as a misogynistic film because the confused crowd can only see the most superficial elements of the story. For those who dig deeper, you conclude as Karina Longworth does (http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/why-antichrist-feminist-horror-film), that if the director did indeed have any real significant message to say, it was to demonstrate the subversion of character roles/plot flow in the typical horror form addressing gender issues. That said, this isn't a horror film because of its art house pacing (notoriously slow), and it is only an art house film because it pretends to mean something deeper but I feel like LvT had some serious imagery diarrhea when he concocted this mess of a personal religious allegory. "Most Fucked Up" highlight: blood cum, but many of you will be more shocked when "She" cuts off her clitoris

• Anthony L

  
  Lars von Trier has made the ultimate horror movie. Now, think about the word horror. Are your biggest fears really of a guy in a mask running after you with an axe? Well mine ain't, mine are of loss, and that is what this film is about, I believe the title is a part dig (at the… More
  Lars von Trier has made the ultimate horror movie. Now, think about the word horror. Are your biggest fears really of a guy in a mask running after you with an axe? Well mine ain't, mine are of loss, and that is what this film is about, I believe the title is a part dig (at the trend of aforementioned horror films) and part sarcasm. The main characters are on the brink of completely loosing everything that matters to them, what could be worse than loosing a child, partner and even your own mind. Throw in sex for uncomfortable taboo sake, not forgetting a bit of castration for good measure (again, it's about loss!), surreal but breathtaking imagery and what you are left with is something truly original and very beautiful but often discomforting and disturbing (It is Lars von Trier after all!). 'Film should be a pebble in your shoe', and if a jobs worth doing, it's worth doing properly. Please don't dismiss this film, sure Lars von Trier's work isn't to everyones taste but look at his films and see that he is very competent and very able and never arrogant or pretentious!

Read all 20 featured audience ratings