Antichrist, by Lars Von Trier

[Neville]

Plot: After the death of their son, a couple try to get rid of their demons. The trauma is specially evident in the wife, and his husband, a therapyst, decides that she needs to faces her utmost fears. With this in mind, they travel to an isolated cabin in the woods.

Comments: Lars Von Trier is a prankster. I mention this despite his latest movie being completely devoid of humour. Among his feats, denouncing the evils of contemporary filmmaking, creating a response (the DOGMA manifest) and, right after duping several filmmakers into joining the initiative, forgetting about the whole thing after a couple of movies. Or, upon learning that American critics considered his film "Dogville" as anti-American, announcing he would film two more sequels and turn it into a trilogy.

I mention all these things because something tells that me for Von Trier the payoff for making this film has just begun. I can imagine him chuckling while he reads the reviews that label him sadist or sexist, or slapping his waist thinking of the many innocent viewers who will buy tickets thinking this is an usual horror movie, or of the gore hounds lured by the promise of extreme violence.

But Lars Von Trier is also a genius. And here, just like he did in his previous films, he approaches a stablished genre as if he was writing down his own set of rules. There are no jump scares, and we don't see the usual signs when a character starts acting weird. We do get darkness, surreal imagery and ominous music, but not the way you may expect. And the violence, when it ocurs, it's almost as mean as it would be in real life. Von Trier is not after your adrenaline, but after your soul. 

[RCMerchant]

I've seen the IDIOTS by Lars. Bizzare-to say the least.

[Neville]

If you enjoyed it, you should try this one. Hell, anybody should. Just make sure you understand this is no Dark Castle film, but an arthouse film.

[Rev. Powell]

Descriptions I read made it sound like an arthouse torture porn picture.  They also suggested Von Trier was suffering from deep depression during the making of this movie, and that it shows on the screen with the nihilistic tone of the film.  I'll probably see this someday, but I'm a bit concerned that it's not going to be any fun, and a depressing drag to sit through. 

[Neville]

There are a couple of bloody bits, but a far cry from torture porn. As for the whole depression thing, being Von Trier I'm tempted to believe it's all a bunch of propaganda. There is quite a good deal of psichiatry trown into the plot, but I've seen worse.

It is a nihilistic film, this I can admit. But you could consider it more "fun" than other works by Von Trier. Which I know it isn't saying much.

But if it ever opens in a theatre near your place, give it a try. It's worth every second.

[Caronte]

I recommend it too. The prologue of this movie is really awesome. ultraslow camera, handel music, black and white images...amazing. The story is very hard and it has some scenes not aproppiated for some kind of audience, but he always does interesting movies.

[Rev. Powell]

There are a couple of bloody bits, but a far cry from torture porn. As for the whole depression thing, being Von Trier I'm tempted to believe it's all a bunch of propaganda. There is quite a good deal of psichiatry trown into the plot, but I've seen worse.

It is a nihilistic film, this I can admit. But you could consider it more "fun" than other works by Von Trier. Which I know it isn't saying much.

But if it ever opens in a theatre near your place, give it a try. It's worth every second.

You were right.  Wow, was that a strange experience. 

It's as if von Trier deliberately set out to make a movie to please no one.  The gore, violence and unnecessarily explicit sex turn off the arthouse crowd, and the slow pace turns off anyone looking to see an exploitation film.

The prologue and the epilogue were quite simply two of the most beautiful sequences I've ever seen on film. Both Dafoe and Gainsbourg were superb.   

I think it would have been a better movie if he'd taken out the "extreme" shock scenes.  I have yet to see a movie that benefits from depicting penetration.  The controversial scenes take up only a few minutes of screen time, but the majority of the discussion.  It's almost as if they're only put there to turn off viewers, as if the director was injecting a little bit of John Waters prankishness into an otherwise solemn movie.  Though there is a thin thematic justification for the most shocking scene, it really doesn't do much except draw attention to itself and detract from the eerie atmosphere. 

There were parts of this that are as scary as anything I've ever seen, particularly because you never know exactly where the movie's going---and even when it ends, you're not entirely sure where it's gone.  I was extremely unnerved the first time the acorns began raining down on the roof.  Making such an ordinary event frightful is a true accomplishment.

4.5/5. 

[Neville]

I'm glad you liked it, it seems to work with even less people than your usual Lars Von Trier film, which is saying something. Personally, I am not a fan of his work, but I think this is his more accomplished film. Trier here seems to be re-writing the rules of the psycho-thriller from zero. The psychological bable seems reasonable for once, and you'd say every action by the characters, no matter how extreme, is understandable. And at the same time he seems to be playing the horror movie rules, the images are at the same time incredibly beautiful and terrifying.

And yet, as you say, Lars Von Trier can't resist playing the provocateur as well. It's always been his game, as far as I can remember. If feeding the masses hungry of schlock and cheese a psycho thriller that takes itself so seriously, and then throwing them genuinely disturbing images is not a first rate prank, then I'm eating my signature.

[wickednick]

This was one of the singularly most disturbing films I have ever seen. It was slow but when something did happen I found my self with my jaw ajar and my balls shriveling back up into my innards. Man this is a sadistic movie.

[claws]

Any movie that makes me cover my eyes is fine by me. This one made me cover my eyes twice! And I loved it 

Just done watching the German Blu-ray. Amazing film but I still need to process what I saw.

Anyway, highly recommended.

[Flick James]

I looked this film up and it looks positively disturbing. I don't know if I even want to give it a go. I usually ask myself, when consdering watching a film, "What will I gain from watching it?" There are a number of things I can gain from watching a movie, including a bad movie that is appreciated for it's cheese factor. I haven't decided if I will gain anything from watching this, so is it worth the mental scars I may receive?

[Neville]

In a word, yes. It's not nearly as extreme as you may have been lead to believe, and it's a very interesting film.

[Rev. Powell]

The film is disturbing, not just for the "money scenes" (which are short) but for the overall despairing and nihilistic tone.  I am recommending the film, but I honestly can't predict how any individual would react to it.  I recommended it to someone whose tastes generally match mine and she loathed it; she thought it was totally insincere and just shock for shock's sake.  I suspect this might be one of those "Napoleon Dynamite problem" movies.

[Killer Bees]

I've just rented this but haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

The story sounded good, so I'll go in with an open mind  I've never watched any of Von Trier's stuff before, so it should be interesting.