IFC Films | Release Date: October 23, 2009
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 166 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
111
Mixed:
34
Negative:
21
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
5
gonzologicJan 31, 2014
Good acting and beautiful cinematography, but beyond that I can't recommend it. This was just bleak, even for Lars von Trier, who I usually enjoy. Sort of picks up in the last 30 - 45 minutes, but the payoff isn't worth the dull first threeGood acting and beautiful cinematography, but beyond that I can't recommend it. This was just bleak, even for Lars von Trier, who I usually enjoy. Sort of picks up in the last 30 - 45 minutes, but the payoff isn't worth the dull first three quarters. Yes, I could dissect the themes and symbolism and probably have a rewarding conversation about it now, having seen it... but meh. The whole thing (very) basically boiled down to "wah, human nature sucks, here's Willem Dafoe being a dick and Charlotte Gainsbourg crying about it for two hours." Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
AlienSpaceBatsJul 27, 2011
Provocative, demented, ultimately pointless with an undercurrent of theological nonsense. Should not be taken seriously, best viewed as an exercise in atmosphere.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
4
lexgOct 24, 2009
Seemed rather pointless to me.
3 of 6 users found this helpful
5
JoshuaS.Oct 25, 2009
A film that ultimately seems to polarize its viewers, Von Trier's "Antichrist", left me scratching my head. I admired the performers and their courage onscreen, the photography was stunning and moody, but by the end I felt like I had A film that ultimately seems to polarize its viewers, Von Trier's "Antichrist", left me scratching my head. I admired the performers and their courage onscreen, the photography was stunning and moody, but by the end I felt like I had been told 3/4 of a story and wasn't let in on the point. Truth be told, I left more bored with the film philosophically than I left fascinated by the imagery and the acting. Does Von Trier have a point about... I don't know... something? Or is this merely an exercise in self congratulatory film-making where the final product is meant merely for himself? It has an undeniable impact on the audience, but the pointlessness of the film simply left me shrugging my shoulders, not understanding what the fuss was about. Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful
4
MarcOct 26, 2009
Some great camera work, but boils down to two characters in exponential agony and grief for 2hrs and its torture to sit through, mainly because I found no empathy with two thoroughly unlikable leads, personally I cared more for the Some great camera work, but boils down to two characters in exponential agony and grief for 2hrs and its torture to sit through, mainly because I found no empathy with two thoroughly unlikable leads, personally I cared more for the disemboweled fox. In short I became so bored with everything that was going on and by the time Gainsborough started mutilating Defoe and her own genitals I really had just lost interest, not shocking just self indulgent garbage really. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful
4
Paul_YoonSep 20, 2010
Too much violent and too much explicitly sexual scenes hide the 'real' value of this movie. Antichrist fails to approach the plausible ending and describe a gothic nightmare.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
TTW107Apr 12, 2012
Some of the camera shots are absolutely beautiful but there is a rather disturbing segment of, i don't know, about 5 seconds that should not have been in the film and literally makes me never want to see the movie again. I am very tolerableSome of the camera shots are absolutely beautiful but there is a rather disturbing segment of, i don't know, about 5 seconds that should not have been in the film and literally makes me never want to see the movie again. I am very tolerable of things I see in movies because it is fake and I know this but this part crossed the line, coming from me, that says a lot. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
smijatovDec 20, 2010
This is rather disappointing, considering that it comes from one of the best European directors nowadays. Surely, von Trier's style is clearly visible in this film, technically and as well with his strange choice of theme. The provocativeThis is rather disappointing, considering that it comes from one of the best European directors nowadays. Surely, von Trier's style is clearly visible in this film, technically and as well with his strange choice of theme. The provocative nature of the film is also very typical of him.
However, the gruesomeness, cruelty and violence are something new - at least visually. All this films deal with the nature of humans, but they are never so visually disturbing. This is where he went too far. Also, it is rather open-ended leaving the viewer rather confused, and largely disgusted.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
schmidtfaceFeb 12, 2011
This was one of the strangest movies I had ever seen. I would only recommend it to people that don't have anything better to do. There are worse movies out there and I should probably give it a little more than a 4 but I'll never watch itThis was one of the strangest movies I had ever seen. I would only recommend it to people that don't have anything better to do. There are worse movies out there and I should probably give it a little more than a 4 but I'll never watch it again, and don't feel like it quite deserves a 5. The movie rested entirely on the 'he' 'she' characters and if it wasn't for Defoe and Gainsborough playing the part, the story would be a sick horror perversion with a lack of substance. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
[Anonymous]Oct 23, 2009
I saw this movie in France over the summer not knowing what to expect. Based on the title, I figured it would be a campy or run-of-the-mill horror film. This is absolutely NOT the case. While the events of the film are indeed horrifying, I saw this movie in France over the summer not knowing what to expect. Based on the title, I figured it would be a campy or run-of-the-mill horror film. This is absolutely NOT the case. While the events of the film are indeed horrifying, this is not your typical horror film. People expecting a 'Hostel'-esque romp of slaughter will be bored to death until well into the movie. People expecting a movie about loss and coping with death will be scarred by the terrifying and appallingly graphic violence and mutilation towards the end of the film. And women everywhere will probably feel insulted like I did, as the film seems to suggest that a woman is featured as the title's antichrist.' A lot of the film is shot beautifully, and the acting is superb. But large chunks of the movie (the parts that aren't pornography and mutilation) are presented as a stereotypical 'art film,' and it was generally off-putting to watch, as if the director was just daring us to dislike it. And parts of it that are supposed to be taken seriously are just laughable and awkward. All I can say is that I feel bad for Willem Dafoe's genitals. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
RobertBroganSep 27, 2015
Lars von Trier is a talented and imaginative director. I find his films interesting, but never exactly "like" them. Antichrist is not so much horrifying as alternatively interesting and repugnant. The graphic bits feel out-of-place and in badLars von Trier is a talented and imaginative director. I find his films interesting, but never exactly "like" them. Antichrist is not so much horrifying as alternatively interesting and repugnant. The graphic bits feel out-of-place and in bad taste; it is as if the film is saying: "Now be horrified!" If the film is working psychologically, there is no need for that, and if it is not then inserting graphic elements do not exactly help. Cannot recommend the film to anyone. Horror fans will not find the film scary. Art-house fans will probably be put off. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
pwasilewskaJun 28, 2017
I'm not really sure if I understood it very well. Von Trier is always trying to be so original. It moved me, but unfortunately it doesn't mean it was a good movie. Maybe I'm just not a fun of that kind of art. I need to watch it again toI'm not really sure if I understood it very well. Von Trier is always trying to be so original. It moved me, but unfortunately it doesn't mean it was a good movie. Maybe I'm just not a fun of that kind of art. I need to watch it again to check if my opinion stay the same. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews