Antichrist (2009)

Very Cool!!!

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

I didn't get what was so scary about it. Towards the end it worked best because it was more mysterious and creepy, but it dragged at times and just kept going in circles. It's just about this woman who goes from nightmarish visions to wanting rough sex with her doctor who fathered their deceased baby. It had some cool filmmaking.

The first entry in Lars von Trier's Depression Trilogy is an increasingly disturbing but consistently gripping experimental horror that's unnerving, unsettling & unforgiving in its depiction of grief, pain & despair but it doesn't dig deep into those depressive elements to make a lasting impression.The story of Antichrist follows a grieving couple who, following the loss of their only son, retreat to a cabin in the woods in order to recover from the tragedy and repair their broken marriage. But as days pass, the husband starts experiencing strange visions while the wife manifests increasingly violent behaviour.Written & directed by Lars von Trier, the story is narrated in chapters, each covering a depressive stage that gets more n more intense as plot progresses. One element Trier captures perfectly is that suffocating feeling & tendency to blame when not in a stable state of mind, and takes the premise into a horror territory in a very controlled fashion.Characters & their situation is relatable at first, which makes their breakdown even more disquieting to watch. Cinematography employs numerous filming techniques, from ultra slow-mo, black-n-white prologue & epilogue that are accompanied by an aria, to the handheld camerawork that provides a sense of discomfort with its erratic movements.Editing employs a text book narrative style, starting with a prologue that beautifully sets the stage for the main plot which unfolds in 4 chapters, gradually escalating to a harrowing finale, and concludes with an epilogue that exhibits the same serenity as its prologue. But the pacing is a bit on the slow side as the story meanders a lot in between, and isn't going to satisfy all.Coming to the performances, both Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg carry the entire film on their own and deliver strong inputs, both individually & as the couple. Dafoe is calm & composed in his role as the husband & therapist who tries to help his wife move on. Gainsbourg is even better as the wife whose condition goes from bad to worse before all hell breaks loose in the final act.On an overall scale, Antichrist turned out to be better than what I initially expected, for it packs a plot that, despite a few pretentious artsy touches, remains accessible for the most part. Definitely not a film for all & certainly not for the easily distressed, Antichrist is merciless once the cruel side of nature takes over and though still not very rewarding in the end, the interest at least is never lose. Worth a shot but better be wary of what you are getting into.

When I first started watching this movie I thought it would be just another horror junk but I was wrong. It's one of the most painful movies that I've seen in my entire life. Its not properly horror because it doesn't frighten us, despite having shocking and graphic scenes, but it also takes us totally out of our comfort zone. Its not pornographic, although making use of strong sex scenes and the camera, sometimes, do some frontal shots of the actor's genitalia. What is it then? I don't know, perhaps a mixture of everything, wrapped in lots of philosophy and tied with religion strings.The film is separated into chapters (Preface, Grief, Pain - Chaos Reigns, Despair - Gynocide and Epilogue) and essentially addresses the process of madness of a mother after the death of her child. None of the characters have a name. They are what they are. Its possible that the Wife feels guilty: there is a moment when it seems that she understands what will happen to her son but chooses not to interrupt intercourse. The film uses mourning to address issues such as fear (and the way we face it), pain, anxiety and shock. At one point, Husband, who is a psychologist, decides to take the Wife to a forest that he knows frightens her, to show her that even our worst fears can be beaten. But in the middle of that hostile environment, Wife will conclude that Evil is a part of the Nature and manifests specially in women, so Nature ends up being the Antichrist and Woman ends up being a vehicle for Evil. There's a lot of philosophy and religion implicit in this part of the movie, and so it takes a bit of brain to figure it all out. I will not say how it ends or what happens next, but I think its wise to warn you that there are real shocking scenes, particularly for the women in the audience. In fact, many critics accused Lars Von Trier of being misogynist here.Although the script can be shocking and even sadistic sometimes, the film presents itself as a work of art. Cinematography is perfect, with a very elaborate color and light, a great care in the details, great visual effects and a wise use of blur and black and white. The prologue is full of sad poetry, and we see everything happening to the sound of the famous aria "Lascia ch'io pianga", from the Handel's opera "Rinaldo" (one of the most beautiful arias of baroque opera). The end repeats this formula. Sound effects are excellent, and the idea of ​​using acorns falling on the roof as a sound effect to amplify dramatic tension was truly brilliant.There's still time to talk about the actors. We almost only have the two mains characters, starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsburg. Both were fully up to the challenge, particularly her, with a performance that was intense, painful and insane. I really don't know to what extent such a dramatic exercise could affect me psychologically, but I'm not a professional actor. She really deserved the award for Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival, and it was really sad that Hollywood Academy didn't valued this film.This film, according to what I read, is the first of the "Depression Trilogy", as Von Trier was healing from a depression while filming, so his mental state may have had weight in scriptwriting. I don't agree with some critics who said that this movie is full of gore. There's more gore in "Hostel" or any movie in the "Saw" franchise than here. The problem is that the few gore here can shock us three times more because it makes more sense and we almost feel the pain and despair of the characters.Personally I enjoyed this film, I was quite surprised. It was my first contact with Lars Von Trier's work and I will certainly look for his other films, but I understand who didn't like it. Even my mother would hate this movie, and I can understand why. It's not a movie up for anyone or any audience. You have to be prepared.

yes my very very very fav. film on number one with Stalker, Apocalypse Now and Valhalla Rising, seen dozen times,true masterpiece with endless layers first of all the greatest tragedy that can happen, Greek style ,no shrink can help here, and then all the other levels. Von Tier's Magnum Opus. He did it.