Mariam Mansuryan The whole film I was trying to understand why its title is Antichrist. So I was looking for allusions and that's what I'll talk about in this review.First of all, the garden of Eden, obviously, this is... the Garden of Eden... where Adam and Eve met each other and had their lovely adventures until that nasty snake came. It's also a representation of Heaven, and as "she" (since neither the man nor the woman have names here) says: Nature is Satan's church. A lot of things one location can be. A Satan's church is also represented visually many times, but one scene that especially sticks to me is that right before the Epilogue, where the forest becomes full of seemingly sexless naked bodies. Satan's church is obviously a very oxymoronic phrase, as Satan does not belong in the church, women even cover their heads to keep Satan away inside the church... but this weird custom means that he is after all in the church. One way or another, Satan seems to be hiding in the nature, like in the den of the fox... And it also hides within the human heart. In both "her" and more well controlled in "his". Maybe in Nick's heart too, and maybe it was Satan that pushed him to jump out.This brings me to a remark I can't not make. In both Antichrist and Melancholia, Lars Von Trier does something really great. He manages to reflect the world inside a person through the world outside. In Melancholia, the melancholy of the main character is symbolized by the planet approaching the Earth, and the clash is inevitable. At the end she makes peace with her melancholia, doesn't try to pretend anymore, and that's when the clash happens, while she rests in the magic cave.The same is here, the man goes into the forest, which is a representation of his wife's inner world, where he didn't have access for a long time, and only Nick did. Maybe that's why Nick jumped off, he was already crazy after seeing where her mother lived. At the end, where she stares at him jumping down, there is a feeling that she is somehow guilty for his death, and maybe she was... Maybe that's why his shoes were put on incorrectly, because she couldn't help but torture Nick.The film may be called Antichrist because the three wise men are Grief, Despair and Pain... So it's pretty antichrist. Another allusion is when she is lying in the grass, and her pose is exactly that of Christ's when he is resurrected.There is a lot to notice in this film. Mainly, I liked the combination of the moving camera reality and the slow motion abstractness, and the Pathetic Fallacy which Von Trier is a master of, I think.

Filipe Neto 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.

framptonhollis There are some movies out there that are disturbing not only in their content, but also in their genuine quality. Who knew that a film featuring dead babies, self mutilation, and bloody semen could be such a masterpiece? And a surprisingly poetic one at that?! Well, with this brilliant, provocative, and bone chilling experimental film, Lars Von Trier proves that any subject matter and any imagery can be weaved into a great, and objectively flawless (on a technical level) work of art. Trier avoids pretension despite making this film as "artsy" as it seems possible, and he is able to do such by creating a clever, shocking story that consumes the viewer in a brilliantly paced, relentlessly explicit manner. While I am praising this film with extreme enthusiasm, it is likely to be too disturbing, twisted, and odd for most moviegoers, so I cannot exactly recommend it like I do many other films I give a perfect score. However, for those that can can handle the grotesque visuals, heavy subject matter, and discomforting style, "Antichrist" is a feast for the eyes, mind, and heart-a feast that may seem excessive at times, but nonetheless enthralling. Divisive, controversial, loaded with tons of disgusting sex and violence, Trier proves his immense talent and bravery with this horror masterwork."Antichrist" was a movie bound to receive gallons of both hatred and praise from the start, and I do not blame viewers who do not like this movie. It's not for everyone, or most people even, which is part of the reason why I hesitate to recommend it. It isn't just because some of the content is a bit strong for the average person to handle, but it's also because the film itself is so experimental, slow, and strange in its approach that it may not appeal to many, who will probably find it to be a self indulgent mess of wasted talent and needlessly gross imagery/concepts. But, I tend to believe that this is a masterpiece that just so happens to require heavily acquired taste for the viewer to take anything meaningful and positive from the experience. Some fans of "Antichrist" may be sadists or arrogant film students, and some detractors may misinterpret it by calling it "sexist" (it's more of a subtle, largely neutral commentary on the origins and most ancient types of misogyny than a work that endorses said concept) or labeling it as a stupid, pretentious, "artsy-fartsy" pile of art-house retard sh*t, and I oppose both sides. i just like a good movie, and it just so happens that "Antichrist" is not only a good movie, it's a great one, one jam packed with meaning, intelligence, surrealism (as well as realism), beauty, psychological terror, claustrophobic chills, and much more.

lamonzon-20651 I watched the film, and wondered why I was so miserable during the entire thing. Lars von Trier is not an artist - he's a sadist, and I know plenty of Danes who hate him. He is a poseur, who has embraced fascism and cruelty. It seems his sole purpose is to humiliate his actors, and really, his work is mediocre. He relies on shock value, using well known and generally talented actors - it adds to the "oh my god!" factor. He really should be walked off a cliff, but if you like watching people have their dignity removed in a manner utterly lacking in subtlety - Lars is your guy. Watch this film if you want, but honestly? I wouldn't waste my time; that's two hours I'll never get back.