Antichrist

This films owes so much to George Lucas' epic flop Star Wars than any other film you can mention. Its premise is an attack upon the apparently logical assumptions made by the quackish therapy industry, and more recently the faddish 70's throwback to NLP, and its 'ability' to help people grieve. It also tries to pin the baddie status upon the woman for a welcome change instead of the typical male baddie. The film also contains a scene of symbolic visualisation of the heterosexual penetrative sexual congress act ie a close up of Mr Defoes part slipping into Mrs Gainsbourgs gill in black and white not color. Dried up people and fools tend to focus upon split second elements of this film such as this 'porny bit' to detract from the rest of the well shot film. The film is well shot because they used a robot version of Lars von Trier. The violence too is rather tame for all the talk about certain scenes. It is more to do with the parts of the body it is inflicted upon rather than the scene itself. Somehow its okay to decapitate and shoot people, dip them in acid or run them over in an automobile, but snipping a budgie tongue off is more shocking. All violence should be shocking, but the genital mutilation scene is in context in this film and so loses any kind of impact of shock. What is more shocking is the amount of satanic imagery and symbolism that has managed to get past the censors. The talking fox especially. Some people say that it is a spirit or a ghost that causes all the trouble, but for me, it is about evil being people themselves, not some fake spiritual weak explanation for the cruelty that people do to each other offered by faith companies. In summary, though not Lars best film, its not as bad as some less serious reviewers make out, particularly the most talked about bits. If anything would drag down this films score it would be the fact that it serves more as a practice run for the technology and techniques explored in the films visual journey to be better employed in a later film with a more challenging storyline by the director. In short, a good film with some sex bits chucked in with a few violent flashes and some fancy camerawork with posh film symbolism shoehorned in too. Great first date film!

Love it or hate it, you can't deny that there's something very hypnotic about this film. I must admit that it's the only Lars von Trier film I've seen and it took a second viewing to realise that it's a work of genius, but a work of genius that definitely isn't to everyone's taste. It must be one of the most dividing films of modern times due to it's shocking and now infamous scenes of sex, violence and genital mutilation. But the body horror isn't the reason I grew to like the film so much: it's the simplicity and the visual power of Von Trier's directing. He (Dafoe) and She (Gainsbourg) loose their only child when it falls from a high window and dies. She goes into a prolonged state of mourning and He, a psychiatrist, decides to expose her to her fears in order to overcome grief. In this case her fear is the aptly-named Eden, a vast forest with a log cabin at its centre. Retreating into the woods the couple find paradise, lost; as She points out later, "Nature is Satan's church". The film is a barrage of symbolism ruled over by the Three Beggars (a deer carrying a stillborn faun fetus, a fox disembowling itself and a crow that never dies) who represent Grief, Pain and Despair. The abstract nature of the film is emphasised by the dreamlike scenes that occur, inspired, as it says at the end, by Andrei Tarkovsky himself. The film's bizarre imagery is made possible by Von Trier's use of the "Phantom Camera" that shoots at 1000 frames per second, allowing for super slow motion that is implemented in the film's stunning black and white prologue and She's eerie dream sequences. There is something very primal about the film -- a couple alone in an isolated forest surrounded by Nature. Von Trier often lingers upon the sights and sounds of the woods such as the shadows of the trees, the falling of acorns and the forest itself stretching for miles into the distance. You can feel the weight of Nature itself crushing down on She especially: she succumbs and is driven to madness. Von Trier has even been accused of misogyny, as the film deals frequently with the "evil nature of women" (hence the symbol of female in the film's title); the fact that She could represent Eve, the cause of the Fall of Man, suggests this. She was also writing a thesis on gynodice, a book filled with disturbing woodcuts of witch trials and covens. The second half of the film is dark and bleak and where most of the controvery lies, but don't let that put you off. Lastly, the film is a testament to the two leads, Gainsbourg in particular. The acting is top notch, the best I've seen in a while. When you realise how physically gruelling and demanding the film must've been for the actors it is good to know that the final product shows off their abilities as much as possible. Frankly it is Oscar-winning material, but due to the film's very un-Hollywood nature it could sadly go unnoticed. But already the film has become something of a phenomenon, particularly the talking fox and its words "Chaos reigns". All sorts of things pop up when you type it into Google images, you can watch Youtube videos of the phrase superimposed into Fantastic Mr. Fox, and there is even a t-shirt available with the phrase on it. For all its hate the film (or a part of it) has become a cultural hit. I do highly recommend this film, though most of the people I know would probably be disgusted. You have been warned...but watch it anyway and you could be unpleasantly surprised.

I watched this film when it first came out in the cinemas with a friend of mine.. and ya know what... i loved it!.. i loved how it pushed boundaries leaving me feeling slightly violated at points (mainly due to the fact that i didnt expect it and hadnt read anything about it before i watched it so was totally unprepared).. i loved how it felt like watching a nightmare unfold on screen with the same confusing, surreal and disturbing personality my own darkest dreams seem to exhibit, with wealths of symbolic meaning and subconsious imagery thrust at you with little care to your feelings. This to me was something to be appreciated rather than enjoyed though so to speak... if you get my meaning? visually its stunning in my opinion and that in itself was enough of a reason for me to love it.. a particular shot of the couple having sex at the base of a tree with various limps/bodies pretruding from the between the roots really stuck in my mind, if youve seen it yourll know what i mean! very artistic. Yes it was a bit up its arse in that it actually took some level of reading after viewing to fully appreciate the symbology and meaning behind various aspects of the film... In regards to this I agree with a previous reviewers comment that "To be understood one has to read about it and analyse the imagery rather than take the work literally"... but this doesnt make me like it less. If anything it makes me like it more. To me it is more a piece of videoart/art house film than a movie to go see on ya friday night out at cineworld lol and thats the perspective from which I've decided to appreciate it. It intruiges, it disturbs and left me with a sense of confusion and dissociation.. nothing quite felt real after I stepped out of the movie theatre.. me and my friend were in a strange state of.. well we couldnt even think of a word to describe it tbh.. for quite a while we were left thinking 'what did we just watch'.. whatever we witnessed was deeply affecting.. but we couldnt quite come to terms with it straight away... I love this feeling of being haunted by a piece of work such as this.. yourll either love it... hate it... or simply not understand it or care enough to try to.. either way.. i think its worth watching incase you are one of the people that gets something out of it, as if you are one of those people, theres a LOT to get. so yea.. not sure if that makes you wanna give it a try, but i hope it does! lol

I guess this product doesn't really need another Review - there are plenty here already - but I "loved" this film so much I just had to say what I feel and think about it. It should disturb people - I presume it is meant to. But only in the sense that it is crying out to people's denial of our terrible human condition here; the Evilness of planet earth. So much that is generally hidden or denied or labelled pathological, but which is actually normal. And of course to say such things is to immediately invite people's wrath, even if it is the Truth. For me there is only one error in the movie - and that is the equation of nature with women only; and somehow men representing the mind/intellect/rationality. Because, in Truth, of course, man and the mind are as much a product of nature as everything else on the planet. There is the battle to try and rationalise an emotional event - and the portrayal of the fact that that is just not possible. Nor can it be. And ultimately the body and emotions win, as Dafoe himself finds out. There is nothing shocking about any of the sexual scenes; nor has it got anything to do with mental illness. Nor is it a horror movie, though it is of course horrific in certain scenes. People who want to take those lines are, again, missing the more distressing point that pain, grief, sorrow, anger and "madness" are major parts of our life as humans on this planet. The primal scream is actually shown visually, as is the cruelty of nature. The images of the half-born, dead baby deer still trapped in its mother's body for example; the almost-dead bird eaten up by other creatures and so on. This is an exploration of von Trier's idea that "nature is satan's church". And although I wouldn't use the word "satan", I can see what he is driving at and wholly agree. At least he has dared to look at many issues and aspects of our lives straight in the eye - in a world which prefers to pretend they don't exist. I totally recommend.

This has to be one of the most powerful, haunting and emotionally draining films I have ever seen! I don't need to go into any of the details of plot etc. as other reviewers have already done so. I am guessing that this is a film that Lars von Trier HAD to make, irrespective of whether it won any awards, or what the critical concensus might be. His 'personal' involvement is evident from watching the Bonus features (recommended, by the way). So much about this film is perfect. The cinematography is fabulous (in more ways than one!) - as is the music score (much use of 'naturally' created sounds - a nice extension of 'musique concrete' as pioneered in the 50's). And the choice of the Handel aria from 'Rinaldo' for the prologue is a superb use of 'image/sound' linkeage (almost challenges Kubrick's use of 'The Blue Danube' in 2001 !), though this is much more emotional. Also, there are few films which capture so perfectly as this, the immensely difficult task of portraying dream and nightmare sequences - truly haunting! This is not a 'horror' film (though, of course there are some extremely horrific moments), but these are the 'natural!' outcome of the film's real themes which are grief, loss, guilt,(this latter being strongly connected to the sexual content of the film), and all the black, painful emotions one must experience after the death of a child. All this coupled with the female character's previous interest in, and subsequent obsession with, the possible evil nature of woman, witchcraft, pagan connections etc. makes the downward emotional spiral all the more horrific. So, take no heed of the one and two star reviews! This is a film that will live with you for some time afterwards, and for anyone with a serious interest in film, you cannot NOT but see it!

Don't waste your money - boring and tasteless.

I have enjoyed horror films for many years, and have often wondered why they all seem to have as much blood and gore as possible these days. To me, a good horror film is one that makes you jump out of your seat, and not one that has eyes, limbs and other organs being thrown about.People undergoing varius aspects of being murdered has been done to death, and then along came "The Exorcist", which blew every horror picture away when it first came out. This film is very, very boring, and then becomes increasingly nasty. I am surprised it was even given a certificate because it really is a sicko of a movie after about forty minutes, but by God, you have to sit through some boring rubbish until the nastiness starts, which I won't reveal as it will spoil it for people who haven't seen it. It seems to me to be a film that the makers wanted to be the sickest picture ever made, and I found is quite nasty

Lars Von Trier has never been one to shy away from upset - Heaven knows the man thrives on controversy, as can be seen in a viewing of his earlier Dogme '95 works such as "The Idiots" and "Breaking The Waves", which at times seem engineered to make Daily Mail readers splutter into their cream teas. After embarking onto the minimalist "USA - Land Of Opportunities" trilogy and first foray into comedy "The Boss Of It All" Von Trier purportedly lapsed into a serious bout of depression, and "Antichrist" is the result. If you've opened a newspaper over the last few months concerning this film and it's cinematic release, you know full well what you're letting yourself in for. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, both well-respected actors seemingly wishing to rock their reputations play man-and-wife, locked into a spiralling maelstrom of guilt after their young child dies whilst they were busy having sex in another room of their apartment. The husband whisks the wife away from a psychiatric hospital to a cabin named "Eden" in the woods for treatment and solace - things get very dark from here on in, and the stomach-churning violence and pathos will undoubtedly upset some. Please be aware, this is by no means a "Horror Movie" by any stretch of the word, it's "Art" (According to Von Trier) and is stretched upon an artistic canvas, albeit one painted by Heironymus Bosch in a particularly foul mood. So, blood aside you must tread carefully. Other reviewers have laughed at the more outlandish points, such as the talking fox ("Chaos Reigns" indeed) and the utterly nonsensical dedication to the great Andrei Tarkovsky at the end. But, although not a great movie Von Trier does indeed stir up something Medieval, primeval. Otherwise would it have caused so much anger? I think not.

詳細のところリージョン2と記載が有ったので購入したが再生出来ない 恐らくPAL仕様と思われるリージョンフリーのプレーヤーでは再生出来ました もっと詳細記載すべきだと思う

Respecto a la versión de Cameo, otro comentario dice que no contiene subtítulos en castellano. Señalar que quiizá fuera una unidad defectuosa, pero la mía contiene audio en inglés, castellano y subtítulos en castellano ( no hay subtítulos en inglés). Por tanto es correcta la información de la caja.

Amo e odio Lars Von Trier, ma questo film mi ha profondamente deluso. A parte l'antefatto, il resto del film non l'ho digerito nè capito... forse un mio limite, ma mi sento di sconsigliarlo. Melancholia resta per me il suo migliore

This would have been great but it was a disc that wouldn't play in the U.S.

Otra manera de concebir y hacer cine. Y del bueno. Poética y dura. Magistral en dirección y montaje los 10 primeros minutos.