I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Just perfect...

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Good acting, nicely shot movie with a lot of cruelty and graphic scenes without further explanation or real meaning.Probably if you are currently dealing with a loss of a loved one, you will appreaciate it. But not at the beginning of your morning, as this movie is not for sensitive eyes.It is about grief, the loss of a child. As I never had or wanted to have children I just could not feel that much empathy towards the characters that that alone could hold my attention. I have never checked my phone more than I did while watching this movie.I really liked both Nymphomaniac movies and was sad that they were over, so I watched this as IMDb said it is a trilogy of Trier's. Honestly, a waste of time for me. When the fow arrived that scared the s**t out of me, but otherwise I was bored the whole time. I have never seen such a nicely shot, but boring film in my life. One of the worst I have ever had.

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.

Pornography and Horror are two cinema genres that have an attribute in common: morbidness. The word morbid is even used to define obscenity, along with prurient interest, etc., and the awful Danish director Lars merges porn and horror in this abortion of a film.I won't waste my keystrokes on an elaborate deconstruction of its failings but rather focus on some key elements regarding its porn content. As with a few badly-made 1970s porno films, Lars' use of body doubles to substitute for the private parts of the actor & actress is ludicrously obvious. Horst Baron's big dick substitutes for the evidently puny or at least reticent member of lead Willem Dafoe in a thoroughly extraneous early shot of doggy-style humping that could have and should have been excised, had Von Trier not been intent on shock value. I've enjoyed Horst's acting in dozens of quality Euro Adult features, mainly for Marc Dorcel, and to say his momentary contribution is better than all of Willem's strained performance here is not far-fetched on my part.Basically, we have Lars worshiping Thanatos (death) rather than Eros, with a decidedly anti-erotic result: I would re-title "Antichrist" as "Anti-Erotic". In actual porn films the pornographers generally employ self-censorship in order to avoid legal issues or getting arrested (see: Max Hardcore and Lizzie Borden as the exceptions who did indeed get into trouble) so Von Trier's unholy mixture of explicit sex and grisly violence is a novelty. And a disgusting one at that.This type of pretentious swill generally gets the attention of "artsy" backers (see the film's endless list of European producers and government agencies who fell for Lars, the Emperor with No Clothes) as well as the coterie of film festivals and critics who are perhaps cinema's greatest voyeurs, craving erotic content under the guise of "art".I saw through Lars' charlatanism early on, giving his breakthrough movie "Zentropa" a well-deserved negative review at the 1991 Cannes Film Festival, perhaps its first published review (appearing in Variety newspaper). I recall seeing Peter Cowie (leading expert on Scandinavian cinema) the following day on the Croisette and he said I must have had guts to go against the tide and dissect the failings of an even then darling of the circuit and critics, one of a clique of many a so-called visionary (I prefer to call them hacks) director bamboozling the public with the aid of the gate-keepers and sycophants (Antichrist is released on DVD as part of the "Criterion Collection" making one wonder what criteria are invoked). And I still persist in calling 'em as I sees 'em.

Antichrist is a visually stunning - and admittedly often times difficult to watch - film, I would say let down only by Dafoe's inability to perform any facial expression outside of his regular :- l face. One of the largest issues that people have with this film is what it decides to show. It has a lot of gore and nudity, but I can't say it is gratuitous. It's not a grindhouse movie; the nudity really only shows the film's ability to deal with mature themes, and the gore - when it does appear - is almost entirely to lend itself to some symbolic or plot-furthering motive. The film itself seems quite heavily rooted in religious themes (if you hadn't guessed by the title), but it is pretty hard to tell what exactly all of the symbols, imagery and subtext surmounts to, what it's trying to show. Predictably Trier has not come up with an answer to most of it, instead he goes on about how the film "came to him", which in my books is a very roundabout way of excusing a film that pretends to have substance beneath the immediately obvious plot where none exists. That said, the movie stands up on its own quite well and doesn't really require much explaining from the director to do so - although it certainly would be nice. Whilst being easily more successful, it isn't far from Refn's 'The Neon Demon' in the way that it ends up being a meaningless flick rather than something with deep, thought- provoking concepts. That said, the movie is very entertaining to watch from face value, and one of the better horror movies I have watched in a very long time.