All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Well, this was certainly a balls-out art film, with all the good and bad that that may entail for you.
I thought that it was a brilliant marriage of fantastic, meticulous filmmaking and original art. The performances were very strong and it was technically brilliant. The tone of dread the film creates should be the envy of horror filmmakers everywhere; the outrageously stylistic opening is masterful in its own right.
Was it unpleasant? Extremely. I decided to take a pass on the big gore moment the first time, not really seeing the point of it in the film. I've seen it now. Still don't see the point (of showing the action, not of the action itself. That makes perfect sense).
I'm not going to write much of a review, per se, because I think that this was a very personal piece of art and that as such people's reactions to it will be very personal. All I really wanted to say was that if you get the chance to watch this, I really really recommend that you do. Just be prepared for one or two moments of extremely unpleasant violence, and some hardcore sexual content, if that sort of thing bothers you.
I thought this was well-executed overall, but to be honest, I was expecting something more like Begotten or Eraserhead. Antichrist to me seemed like it was half arthouse/half mainstream.
I enjoyed the performances and the film's visual eye. But I'm not going to lie, it DID feel a bit pretentious (and I hate using that word) with the introduction of the "three beggars." Their symbolism was way too obvious and force-fed. The film gets increasingly stranger as it goes along, as expected from an arthouse film. But the third act is so detached from what we see in the beginning that it almost betrays the masterfully-done first 30 minutes.
I'd give it a 6/10. That being said, I cannot wait for the upcoming videogame sequel. It's going to be amazing.
I said at the time that I saw it at the Cannes Premiere and it blew me away. It looked incredible, the sound design was beautiful and Charlotte Gainsbourgs performance is just outstanding.
It has had very mixed reviews, but for me that says more about the current state of criticism than it does about the film.
For me this is what filmmaking is about; taking risks and trying out new things.
I think it's a work of genius personally. I can understand why people wouldn't like it or "get" it, but for me it's one of the best horror films ever made.
I watched it the other day and it was so extreme it was cringing to watch.. The knocking ornaments off the table would have definitly been heard. I did find it very disturbing and would have imagindd if this was made a few decades back it would have been banned... That being said it was an excellent movie but its not one id wanna watch again. Id give it a 8.5/10.
How have people been able to watch this? I seem to have missed the limited run, something I regret immensely. Still, people seem to have found a way to check it out even now. Everything I've read and been told about this suggests that it'll be my favorite film of 2009.
I saw it when it first came out in Nottingham and I was gobsmacked at it, and people were actually walking out at one cetain scene...
When it came to a cinema in Derby a few months later we all went to see it again, as we thought that it was unlikely to ever see the light of day on DVD.
Stieg Larson is an author or I guess I should say was since he died in -04. He wrote "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest". He was the #2 bestselling author in the world in -08.
The books have been filmed and have received praise. The first one came out over a year ago and the second one earlier this year. I can't find a place to watch them or buy them...
I think all of you who want to watch it won't be dissapointed, it is very disturbing... but it's kind of split into two different movies IMO. The end parts were oh surreal and cringing for both men and woman... you'll know what I mean when you see it. You'll have your hands on your crotch with a bitter taste in your mouth. haha.
it's sort of psychological. It works on many levels, but I know what you are saying. I watched it once and was intrigued. I have no desire to watch it again.
FINALLY saw this. Liked it. Didn't love it but certainly liked it a lot. I think Dancer in the Dark was better and much more powerful. However Antichrist was certainly powerful and likely both the first and last film that was actually more brutal and bizarre than I expected.
The strongest points were the cinematography and the sound. The cinematography really enhanced the intensity and disturbed nature of the film. Some shots were almost painfully close and intimate while others were completely obscure and detached. The juxtaposition between the two was extremely sinister and unnerving, very similar to Nacho Cerda's Aftermath/Genesis. Extremely visceral. The sound was the same. The more I see films like Antichrist, the more I think silence is completely underused in film and the more I think John Williams-esque scores ruin them. The silence in the film was extremely eerie and the juxtaposition amongst heavily layered soundtracks (not scores) was extremely effective.
The sex scenes were extremely graphic and almost always included some sort of painful/violent/"anti-sexual" element which made them extra visceral and disturbing. The violence actually didn't surprise me. I'd read up on the film several times and knew just about what to expect. The nonchalant manner in which it was handled definitely made it more effective though.
The biggest drawback was that the film was very noticeably slow, especially the first three chapters. Normally, I can tolerate slow films. Audition is a film known almost exclusively for its ending and yet it still keeps me intrigued to this day. Slow films that turn me off usually have other issues that become more obvious through the pacing. That is to say the slow films I don't like are usually problematic for some other reason. In Antichrist, it was just slow even though I did want to find out what happens next. I doubt the film would have worked the same if this weren't the case though.
I suppose the performances go without saying although Charlotte Gainsbourg greatly overshadows Dafoe. I suppose this is inherent given the roles of the two characters.
Anyway, although the film wasn't the groundbreaking horror film I thought it'd be, surprisingly I wasn't disappointed and have yet to be disappointed by Von Trier overall. He is without question the gutsiest filmmaker on the planet and, despite his idiosyncratic approaches, is capable of telling some of the darkest, most visceral and grueling stories ever. I don't think I've ever encountered a director who's climbed my list of favorites so fast and given how absolutely heart wrenching and transgressive his films are, I almost feel pathetic as a writer for even trying to emulate a similar vibe. Frankly, I can't wait to see more of his films and, even more, be influenced by them.
Still... Dancer in the Dark. Way better. Best Von Trier so far. Breaking the Waves next.
Breaking the Waves is unbelievably good. Can't wait to hear your thoughts on the much-debated final shot.
I think it's important to mention the sound -- as you say, basically all the evidence needed to support the incredible importance of silence in films can be found in this one. We North Americans are especially bad with this these days and it's something that we should all be thinking about as scriptwriters -- are we leaving room for quiet?