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.

--Julio

I absolutely loved the film.

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.

It had a very limited release in the UK, too.

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.

We were wrong! It's released early January!

Recommended 9/10 !

I've been wondering the same thing. I really really want to see it, but don't know where.

Also frustrated I can't watch the Stieg Larson Trilogy Miillenium. What's up with that????

Lars went through deep bout of depression and thought he may never be able to make a film again, so he made Antichrist just to see if he could.

It's stuff like that that makes me want to see the movie so bad. I think some of the most genuine and creative work comes from a mind in flux.

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.

Really surprised at all the praise here for this movie.

I thought it was abysmal.  So dull, so slow, so downright boring.  Shocking, actually.

It was very, very disturbing in many ways, and I'm amazed it didn't get an X rating...how it didn't, I have no clue, actually.

I really tried to like it and gave it every chance...I didn't like it at all, though, sorry to say.

Nothing at all like I was led to believe.

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?

So two days later, I'm still thinking about Antichrist which is a good sign. My favorite movies are often ones I have mixed reactions to the first time. So I'll definitely have to check this out again. Still, movies that hit as hard as Dancer in the Dark the first time around are usually more certain in their quality. So I'll stand by saying it was better.

Breaking the Waves was in my Netflix cue but has since been made unavailable. That said, I'm going to blind buy it. If it's as good as his last four films I've seen, Lars Von Trier will officially be my second favorite director of all time (after David Cronenberg).

Still very surprised that anyone could really "like" this movie.  Also, shocks me it would stay with you even a few minutes after watching it.  I don' get it.

For me, it was a painful, dull view that dragged on and on.  I was literally half asleep several times and had to readjust myself to stay awake.

I must have missed something...

I haven't debated that the film was slow. Even really slow. You definitely feel its weight and in a negative way. Still, the atmosphere was superb. I suppose it intrigued me more aesthetically as a filmmaker and did sort of take me away from the narrative (or lack there of) but still. Definitely one of the most sinister looking horror movie I've seen in my lifetime. Besides, once things pick up, I think it's worth the wait. It's about as far from accessible as it gets though.

Anyway, I've only seen the film once. I think I might have a different take on it the second time around.

I Finally got around to seeing this and thought it was excellent.

Barbaric, bold, pretentious, self indulgent, gripping & very, very creepy. I've seen a number of Von Trier's work, would consider myself a fan and this ranks up there amongst the best of what I've seen. A truly fearless, provocative filmmaker intent on shock tactics and controversy...I just keep reminding myself not to take him too seriously.

I was utterly fixated from the beginning, both Defoe & Gainsbourg (in particular) are amazing, a very difficult, demanding role for the latter but she pulls it off brilliantly, frightening realistic in fact. Although it’s a dark film with dark subject matter I found it a mesmerizingly beautiful film at times. Dod Mantle shows his artistry by cutting a variety of film formats and techniques into a spellbinding collage of colours, mood an atmosphere. The opening sequence, although portraying a horrific which sets up the story, was so exquisitely shot and scored, I felt guilty admiring its splendid, elegiac aesthetic.

Von trier has always sought to kick up dust, rock the boat and generally pi?s people off, Antichrist is no different. This way his haters always play into his hands, the old adage of “There is no such thing as bad publicity” has never been more apt. The closing image of the women ascending the hill to Dafoe could be seen as unabashed misogyny when considered in the context of the film and Gainsbourg’s gynocide thesis but this is Von Trier totally winding up the audience to stoke reactions. Topping that off with a closing credit dedication to Russian master Andrei Tarkovsky was another display of his sardonic, wry humour. Being a bag of nerves for the duration of the picture this was a great release as I found myself literally laughing out loud when the credits started to roll, just for the sheer audacity and cheek of the man while at the same time, picturing the disgusted, shaking heads of the bourgeois contingent present in that Cannes audience.

But what got me most was how freaked out I was by the whole experience. I haven’t seen his TV show “Kingdom” which was another foray into the horror genre so I was pleasantly surprised by how effective he is at conjuring up unsettling, tense sequences. The cumulative effect of these two tortured souls, startling images and set pieces along with the increasingly foreboding, disjointed mood of the film remains with me now and I imagine will stay with me for a while to come.

Anyway, hyperbole aside...can anyone shed light on the deer-half-giving-birth-whilst running-away scene. One of the biggest “What The Fu?k” moments I've witnessed in cinema in recent times, loved it.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Anyway, hyperbole aside...can anyone shed light on the deer-half-giving-birth-whilst running-away scene. One of the biggest “What The Fu?k” moments I've witnessed in cinema in recent times, loved it.

It's a stillborn for one thing. Did you catch that? I think that in particular opens the floodgates for interpretation. Interpretation being the key word. I think there's a number of things any one element in the film could signify. All the imagery is full of poignance and relevance, given the story and subject matter, and yet I feel like it doesn't fit neatly altogether. Von Trier himself said he didn't intend for the film to make complete sense.

Personally, I like the open-endedness of it all. I hate the attempts at analysis the IMDB users have made. Just makes the film boring IMO.

Seen the film twice at this point. I think it might be von Trier's masterpiece. Visually and performance-wise, it goes without saying. But as far as the rest goes, with the exception of Gaspar Noe, I don't think any of von Trier's contemporaries have even come close to anything that can affect people the way Antichrist does or possesses the same artistic integrity.

That said, it's not my favorite film of his but the one I admire and aspire to the most.

Quoted from James McClung Von Trier himself said he didn't intend for the film to make complete sense.

And there we go...the film maker himself saying he has no clue.  And this is a good thing?

It just literally shocks me, hearing all this glowing praise for a film like this.

Could someone please tell me what this film is even about?  Is it supposed to be remotely as we see it?  Are we supposed to take it seriously?

Agreed, interpretation is key to film, especially "art" (I don't like using that expression but anyway) films. That's what provokes discussion, when certain questions are left unanswered, ambiguous, etc.

Quoted from James McClung That said, it's not my favorite film of his but the one I admire and aspire to the most.

Its hard to call from what I've seen, for me Dogville & Breaking the Waves are two very special films, while Dancer in the Dark straddles the beautiful and poignant with the usual Trier-esque absurdities. I have only seen Antichrist once and wouldn't like to make a definite decision until further viewings as well as seeing more of his work.

One thing is certain though, he knows how to draw remarkable performances from his female leads. For a perceived chauvinistic, woman hater they sure work hard for him, although I did hear that Kidman was traumatised after Dogville.

Quoted from Dreamscale And there we go...the film maker himself saying he has no clue.  And this is a good thing?

-- Saying his film is not meant to make complete sense and "having no clue" are two different things. As James put it, he is leaving certain things open to interpretation, the viewer can make his/her own mind up on specific imagery, the mythological and thematically content. On the contrary, the underlying plot & structure of the film is very linear & straightforward.

Quoted from Dreamscale It just literally shocks me, hearing all this glowing praise for a film like this.

-- Yet it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you didn't like it, Jeff. I coulda’ told you that before you watched the film. This isn't a criticism in any way and I don't mean to sound condescending, I can just make that assumption based on your opinions about films and scripts in general.

Quoted from Dreamscale Could someone please tell me what this film is even about?  Is it supposed to be remotely as we see it?

-- Simply, in order: Tragedy, grief, depression, self loathing, mental illness. Naturally, others can add many more sub textual elements then that, those are the basic, on the surface themes.

Quoted from Dreamscale Are we supposed to take it seriously?

-- As I said above, I take Von Trier with a pinch of salt at the best of times but that detract from the sheer weirdness, power and visceral impact of his films. While I laughed at the shameless homage at the end I was scared outta my wits during the whole thing. I didn't find it slow or plodding, totally engaged right from that masterful opening. I can’t think of a film in recent memory that smeared the lines of artistic beauty, conventional drama & deeply depraved, disturbing horror.

It goes without saying that Antichrist is not for everyone, just one of those films.

Funny, Col.  When I read about this movie before it was released, i was excited to see it.  I heard so many great things.

You answered my question of what this movie was about with Tragedy, grief, self loathing, and mental illness.  I can see where you're coming from with this answer, but I'm referring to the actual story...what we actually see on the screen.  The vents that create the story.

Are we to believe that what we are watching is actually taking place?  As in, are we to take what we see seriously?  If yes, I don't get it at all.  If no, then it's definitely one of those movies that some will love and most will absolutely hate.

Interesting stuff.

Quoted from Dreamscale Could someone please tell me what this film is even about?

As literally as possible, it's about a couple who lose their son and the husband making the absolute worst decisions ever to make his grief-stricken wife "better." There's a scene early on where the wife says she's "cured." Apparently, it's not good enough for the husband and the film goes on. As far as traditional narrative goes, I'd say that's what it's about. The way I see it, it's a film about men and women not being able to fully understand each other and I think that's the driving force of everything that happens.

Quoted from Dreamscale Is it supposed to be remotely as we see it?

I think there's definitely scenes that aren't meant to be taken at face value. How can you take the animals, the sex scene in the woods or the epilogue literally? It just makes no sense. There's definitely a fair share of surrealism going on. I think the nastier bits really happened though.

Quoted from Dreamscale Are we supposed to take it seriously?

Yes and no. A lot of people seem to think von Trier is fucking with the audience half the time and I wouldn't rule that out entirely. But I think it's more a matter of the content just being absolutely outrageous. Not just in Antichrist either. Breaking the Waves is another good example. But I think those outrageous situations bring out genuine emotions that you couldn't really get under other circumstances. Emily Watson said something similar about von Trier and I definitely agree with her.

Also, it might help to keep in mind that Lars von Trier is a really weird dude. I talked to a Danish guy in Lyons (France) who said that while he respects von Trier as a filmmaker, he swore the guy is dangerously close to being committed. He was pretty serious too. I'm not sure I would go that far but the dude definitely has a unique personal history and is not without eccentricities.

OK, James, thanks.  That makes sense.

I watched this one again not that long ago and I didn't like it as much at all the second go around.

I watched The Girl Who Played With Fire last week though. Now that one I liked!  

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Its hard to call from what I've seen, for me Dogville & Breaking the Waves are two very special films, while Dancer in the Dark straddles the beautiful and poignant with the usual Trier-esque absurdities. I have only seen Antichrist once and wouldn't like to make a definite decision until further viewings as well as seeing more of his work. One thing is certain though, he knows how to draw remarkable performances from his female leads. For a perceived chauvinistic, woman hater they sure work hard for him, although I did hear that Kidman was traumatised after Dogville.

I love Dogville. I don't know why but it is one of those films I always forget about when thinking of my favourite films, but really there is no reason for this not to be in my list.

I am sure some of you film student on here understand the methods far better than me but it was a brilliant way to have characters come to the front of the story instead of being hidden behind props and gimmicks. It is a masterpiece in storytelling in my opinion, a wonderful film. However, I have struggled to enjoy  other films of his as much as Dogville.

I have read some good reviews of Antichrist but not yet seen it, I probably should, maybe this weekend as long as I can convince Mrs Murphy it is a rom-com about priests or something.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I watched The Girl Who Played With Fire last week though. Now that one I liked!

Definitely the strongest of the three, I actually never really liked Dragon Tattoo, I didn't really buy into the whole rich family story. The final one was a good conclusion but in my opinion only really worked because of how good the second one was.

Not a bad trilogy really, Especially seeing that they were nothing more than a made for TV mini series. I am very interested in seeing what David Fincher comes up with, while against remakes generally I do think these books need it.

Quoted from Murphy I have read some good reviews of Antichrist but not yet seen it, I probably should, maybe this weekend as long as I can convince Mrs Murphy it is a rom-com about priests or something.

I don't know how easily offended your significant other can get, but if she is, I would think twice about hoodwinking her into seeing this under false pretences, its very intense and graphic in parts. I mean, I wouldn't like to see Lars fu?k up your marriage, you know...Lars himself would probably take great satisfaction in it...but I wouldn't.

I wholeheartedly recommend you check it out though.

Quoted from James McClung Also, it might help to keep in mind that Lars von Trier is a really weird dude. I talked to a Danish guy in Lyons (France) who said that while he respects von Trier as a filmmaker, he swore the guy is dangerously close to being committed. He was pretty serious too. I'm not sure I would go that far but the dude definitely has a unique personal history and is not without eccentricities.

Yeah, his mental instabilities and eccentricities are well documented. He was battling depression when writing & filming some of Antichrist…but again, do you take this seriously?

He left his wife for his babysitter but I guess that's neither here nor there, babysitters are stereotypically hot, right? At least according to porn.

I remember listening to an interview with Defoe when Antichrist came out last year and he talked about when he met Lars for Antichrist. Von Trier picked him up from the airport, barely exchanged a word, drove him out to the country, stripped naked and jumped into a freezing cold lake naked (I don’t remember if Defoe partook), got out and drove back to his home, so that might give you an idea of his personality.

Although, it must be said that Defoe had already worked with him on Manderlay in 2005 (stylistically similar to Dogville and the forth coming Wasington) so they knew each other prior but still, you know, twas a pretty random thing to do.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Yeah, his mental instabilities and eccentricities are well documented. He was battling depression when writing & filming some of Antichrist…but again, do you take this seriously?

I've read a number of interviews about the film and in none of them does he seem to make the connection of his depression to the film's content, only its production. So it hardly seems like something worth milking for notoriety.

I think it's refreshing you don't have to read into everything in von Trier's films as opposed to, say, Michael Haneke's films which are equally extreme (thematically speaking) but completely humorless. I like that he puts his audaciousness out there but his films are still powerful regardless. I feel like they're better appreciated without completely dismissing them as the work of a prankster... which, I suppose he is, to a certain extent.

Quoted from James McClung I feel like they're better appreciated without completely dismissing them as the work of a prankster... which, I suppose he is, to a certain extent.

Of course, Breaking the Waves was predominantly a very sad, repressed, cold film as was Dancer in the Dark in parts, gravitas should be respectfully given to his work appropriately. As I've said, I was scared shitle?s through the majority of Antichrist. I just say to be aware of his humour too and keep in mind his tendency to "put on" the audience sometimes.

As for Haneke, your correct, he is virtually humourless and sometimes overly didactic (one can almost see a subliminal, wagging finger admonishing the viewer through the screen at times) but having said that "The White Ribbon" was easily in my top five films of last year, loved "Cache" (Hidden) & the original "Funny Games too", I desperately need to see more of his stuff.

Anyway, whatever we may like or dislike, understand or misinterpret about these kind of filmmakers and their work, I always tell myself to be very, very thankful they exist in today's monochrome, industrialized film community. In that these artists can maintain their vision (to varying degrees) and still get their work out there for us to enjoy, abhor, discuss or dismiss…at least its there.