User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 134 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 17 out of 134
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 24, 2013
    7
    Not for everyone...it's one of the most difficult films I have ever seen. Visually disturbing, but well-done. Gainsbourg is incredible...she put SO much into this character, both emotionally and physically. It's hard to recommend a Von Trier film, but this is one that must be seen to believe.
  2. Aug 26, 2010
    7
    Enmity grows between a couple after their infant dies and the husband tries to help his wife overcome her grief. Lars von Trier wrote this movie in the peak of a bout of depression, and the result probably his most provocative work to date (which, for him, is saying a lot). It may also be his most exquisite - the first half unravels like a demonic, impressionistic dream while the last halfEnmity grows between a couple after their infant dies and the husband tries to help his wife overcome her grief. Lars von Trier wrote this movie in the peak of a bout of depression, and the result probably his most provocative work to date (which, for him, is saying a lot). It may also be his most exquisite - the first half unravels like a demonic, impressionistic dream while the last half turns into a mesmerizing nightmare. Even if the director's previous efforts haven't grabbed your attention, this movie is sure to compel you. Still, von Trier's exposed representation of carnal desire and trauma is a lot to level with for the sake of art - especially for the actors involved. Expand
  3. Feb 15, 2014
    7
    One fantastic art film. It was unique and showed plenty of effort. However I'm not always happy with the scenes shown that may be considered Over the top.
  4. Dec 20, 2010
    5
    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 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
    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 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
  5. Apr 12, 2012
    6
    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 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.
  6. Jul 27, 2011
    5
    Provocative, demented, ultimately pointless with an undercurrent of theological nonsense. Should not be taken seriously, best viewed as an exercise in atmosphere.
  7. Jun 17, 2011
    10
    Masterfully directed and superbly acted. This movie will devour you and your soul. Von Trier is bloody magnificient. Too bad, that many people don't really understand the depth and the metaphors in this masterpiece.
  8. Feb 5, 2013
    10
    For better or for worse, (probably) there shall never be another film like Antichrist.
  9. Oct 7, 2012
    1
    It's basically an hour and a half of porn, and if anybody tried to convince you there is intelligent or emotional depth to it, they are kidding themselves. After seeing Lars Von Trier movies such as Melancholia and Dancer In The Dark, I had high expectations for this one, even after looking at the lackluster reviews. However, the harshest critics are right. It's basically like if theIt's basically an hour and a half of porn, and if anybody tried to convince you there is intelligent or emotional depth to it, they are kidding themselves. After seeing Lars Von Trier movies such as Melancholia and Dancer In The Dark, I had high expectations for this one, even after looking at the lackluster reviews. However, the harshest critics are right. It's basically like if the Piranha movies pretended they were good. It's a lot of gruesome images, amidst a plot line that seems like it could be an emotional one, and so people just buy into it. There are also completely pretentious moments, such as when he tells his wife to fade into the grass, and she turns green while laying on the grass. I'm sure fans of this movie think that's the deepest thing ever. Whoever said you have to understand pain and depression is extremely pretentious. I usually go for depressing movies, and that actually describes most of my favorites, hence the fact that I'm a Lars Von Trier fan, but there has to be a solid script for those emotions to come through. Simply coming up with an emotional topic isn't enough. The same goes for whoever chalked up the negative reviews to people who don't like art cinema. The Tree Of Life was my favorite movie of last year, because the story was brilliant, and the emotion was there. That emotion isn't going to come through, just by the topic about a couple dealing with losing a child, especially when the way the script tries to convey those emotions is to just have an hour and a half of sex scenes, before the wife has an emotional breakdown at the end. It's kind of interesting, actually. You can fool people into thinking your movie is good, just by having so many random, ridiculous moments, that no one would possibly think any sane writer or director would do it, without having some type of meaning behind it. They don't understand exactly what that meaning is, but they're sure it's there. Ask anyone who raves about how deep this movie is, what the significance is of the mob at the end, and watch them stare blankly without an answer. Charlotte Gainsbourg gives a strong performance, and the cinematography and music are incorporated beautifully enough to feign real artistry. Collapse
  10. Sep 20, 2010
    4
    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.
  11. Sep 15, 2011
    1
    Von Trier goes to great lengths in "Antichrist" to shock, frighten, and speak upon the devolution of marriage due to tragedy. Great, but give it to someone else. Pretentious, silly, vapid, and truly boring.
  12. Nov 17, 2010
    1
    The movie's prologue was beautifully done and promised a beautiful, if not disturbing and depressing movie to come. When Dafoe takes over his wife's therapy he becomes so pedantic that if his wife weren't insane to begin with, we could certainly sympathize with her becoming insane later. I certainly would have been happy to kill him, and I would have preferred that to viewing the storyThe movie's prologue was beautifully done and promised a beautiful, if not disturbing and depressing movie to come. When Dafoe takes over his wife's therapy he becomes so pedantic that if his wife weren't insane to begin with, we could certainly sympathize with her becoming insane later. I certainly would have been happy to kill him, and I would have preferred that to viewing the story line played out. This might have been a good film if a different character had been killed in the end. Every story needs a moral, and the unfortunate moral to this film is that von Trier should not be allowed to make any more movies until he's significantly less disturbed. Expand
  13. Jul 22, 2013
    8
    Von Trier can be polarizing (I for one hated "Dancer in the Dark"), and this film is not for the faint of heart, but what it does well saying something in images that cannot be put into words it does very well.
  14. Jan 7, 2014
    2
    What is going on in the mind of Lars Von Trier? Frankly, I am afraid to know. This is a film for maniacs. Sorry for being so harsh, but except of some good shots and sounds there is not much more positive about "Antichrist". Nobody wants to see blood coming out of Dafoe's penis or Gainsbourg cutting off her at least I hope so. It's mostly disgusting and shouldn't be seen. You getWhat is going on in the mind of Lars Von Trier? Frankly, I am afraid to know. This is a film for maniacs. Sorry for being so harsh, but except of some good shots and sounds there is not much more positive about "Antichrist". Nobody wants to see blood coming out of Dafoe's penis or Gainsbourg cutting off her at least I hope so. It's mostly disgusting and shouldn't be seen. You get unhinged, trust me. Expand
  15. Oct 15, 2012
    8
    I found an intreresting take on Antichrist here: http://4thdimensionfilms.wordpress.com/

    Throughout much of human history, the forest has always been considered a place of danger and foreboding and in Lars Von Trier
  16. Feb 12, 2011
    4
    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 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 GainsboroughThis 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
  17. May 19, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Let me start off by saying "Do not watch Antichrist unless you like the art of cinema". There, we got that out of the way. Now, let me explain why. Antichrist is a film where Lars von Trier tries to tell a story that would usually be far too deep to be shown on the big screen. However, he succeeds. Antichrist is not a misogynistic film, it is the cry feminists have been waiting for for so long, to stand up and shout "that is what it has been like. we want it to change!". Antichrist is, in part, a historic tale of women, combined with an explicit (sometimes too explicit) journey into human psyche. Expand
  18. GMU
    Jun 12, 2011
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This film is pretty hard to watch- not like Tommy Wiseau's The Room; but the movie had elements that really challenged my emotions and patience. It's really hard for me to describe what I didn't like about it because there were so many things that seemed almost perfect and completely upsetting at the same time. This movie was well done because it's so eerie, but then again it's so disturbing that I don't want to say it was enjoyable. I think it is enjoyable, however if you were to only focus on the video (and not the audio) of the film. The reason why I say this is because there are so many beautiful abstractions throughout the film: Such as the first shot of She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) walking through the forest (the beginning of meditation); the 'baby shots' of both characters depicting how the body is reacting to different circumstances; seeing the shocking face in the forest as the car is passing all those trees; etc. I don't think one can say that this is a 'bad film', but I admit it was a bit hard to watch. It is an unusual, unearthly film with great artistic elements to it that outweighs it's unsettling nature. Expand
  19. Apr 1, 2011
    0
    Have you seen Open Water? Is it one of the worst movies you've ever seen? Well, this is ten times worse. It is disgusting, pointless, and just plain wrong. I don't know what the Criterion Collection board was thinking when they included this movie in their collection. Save yourself two hours and don't watch this heinous movie.
  20. Jun 7, 2011
    7
    An intellectually stimulating horror film. I loved it. It's not the kind of horror movie for your average film goer. This is a dialogue driven work of art. It requires your full attention; missing only one line of dialogue could honestly ruin the rest of the film for you.
  21. Tim
    Mar 28, 2010
    9
    Well at least it caught me off guard. Acting is superb and the art house feel made me expect another dysfunctional marriage/ psychological drama. There lies the true genius of von Trier, the ability to know his audience of pretentious wankers, give them the visual candy and pseudo-intellectual dialogue to stimulate their 'fancy film' sensors, and to finally betray them with a Well at least it caught me off guard. Acting is superb and the art house feel made me expect another dysfunctional marriage/ psychological drama. There lies the true genius of von Trier, the ability to know his audience of pretentious wankers, give them the visual candy and pseudo-intellectual dialogue to stimulate their 'fancy film' sensors, and to finally betray them with a conventional horror ending that surprisingly doesn't disappoint. Expand
  22. RobertW
    Jun 7, 2010
    9
    The best new movie I've seen in over ten years. Some parts are difficult to stick with, but they are arguably necessary to the calculated effect Trier crafts upon his audience. Any jackass critic who says he achieved his vision and doesn't give him his due doesn't understand film and anyone who says it's not intelligent doesn't have half a brain and is a The best new movie I've seen in over ten years. Some parts are difficult to stick with, but they are arguably necessary to the calculated effect Trier crafts upon his audience. Any jackass critic who says he achieved his vision and doesn't give him his due doesn't understand film and anyone who says it's not intelligent doesn't have half a brain and is a hypocrite. This movie may not be perfect, but it does a great job of fucking with your mind in a (almost completely) classy way, and that deserves due credit over Hollywood assembly-line flicks with the likes of Ben Stiller or Shrek. Expand
  23. GC.
    Oct 23, 2009
    8
    I thought that the movie was very powerful. The woman's breakdown (and the subsequent perversion of her own studies) was incredible to watch. The actors were both quite powerful in their performances. I was also impressed by the cinematography. In fact, this seemed more like an intense (really intense) psychological drama than a "horror" movie. As the movie progressed to the cabin, I thought that the movie was very powerful. The woman's breakdown (and the subsequent perversion of her own studies) was incredible to watch. The actors were both quite powerful in their performances. I was also impressed by the cinematography. In fact, this seemed more like an intense (really intense) psychological drama than a "horror" movie. As the movie progressed to the cabin, some of the horror elements started to come into play in a subtle but effective way. Again, the more abstract scenes were intense, to say the least. As the realization came to the man that his therapy wasn't working, that his wife had been purposely hurting the child, that she had warped her own studies to support her own guilt... that was when the movie went for the jugular. That last ten to fifteen minutes was waaaay out there. I get the attack on the genitalia (the sin), but honestly, it was a lot more graphic than maybe it needed to be and did catch me off guard. If you just see it as a simple story, then the movie really isn't original... and it tends to be a trippy torture-fest for the viewer. If you look at the movie and try to understand the psychology of the characters, then I really think this was an impressive movie. I would have rated it higher, but those last ten minutes churned my stomach just a bit and seemed needlessly (and overly) graphic. Expand
  24. krisztiank
    Mar 16, 2010
    10
    Ooh. Whenever i read this kind of reviews i am somehow sure that all the classics of cinema - for example movies of Ingmar Bergman - would be rated overall "mixed or average" - if they were made nowadays. In the of movies as Antichrist, the concept of "rating" fails. How would you rate Godard? What would you rate there exactly? eh. Come on. Avatar 84 points? What ARE these reviews about? Ooh. Whenever i read this kind of reviews i am somehow sure that all the classics of cinema - for example movies of Ingmar Bergman - would be rated overall "mixed or average" - if they were made nowadays. In the of movies as Antichrist, the concept of "rating" fails. How would you rate Godard? What would you rate there exactly? eh. Come on. Avatar 84 points? What ARE these reviews about? Joy-factor? With this movie the director clearly spells his truth, even if it´s hard to take. I can´t remember any movie after my teenager years having such an impact, lasting for more than a week. You have to be careful with it, of course. It IS dangerous. But if something in this-layered-cake-looking, cliché-collage film industry can be dangerous to watch - it rather worth to let it work on you - and forget about critical behavior. Expand
  25. ulalar
    Oct 25, 2009
    10
    I have regained my faith in cinema, that it can take part on a more equal basis in a philosophical, humanistic discourse.
  26. Shane
    Feb 20, 2010
    1
    This is without doubt the biggest pile of garbage i have ever seen, i was so mad at this movie and the director that i threw the dvd out of my house. Money that could have been spent on starving children
  27. GarryM.
    Oct 23, 2009
    2
    Great film, if you are into crap.
  28. Jesse
    Oct 23, 2009
    10
    Like Miike's Audition, Antichrist's quotidian moments provide a baseline for the truly powerful scenes to shatter.
  29. RolandB.
    Oct 23, 2009
    10
    I've never felt so calm and so horrified.
  30. AdamM.
    Oct 23, 2009
    9
    This is without doubt a highly underrated film.
  31. SJ
    Oct 25, 2009
    10
    In what will be marked in history as one of the most controversial, literally pornographic & thought provoking pieces of art within the film medium, Lars von Trier has presented an anomaly questioning the foundations of religions themselves, as well as an experience to enmesh the audience well into the film. From practically every facet of quality, Antichrist excels in all areas: In what will be marked in history as one of the most controversial, literally pornographic & thought provoking pieces of art within the film medium, Lars von Trier has presented an anomaly questioning the foundations of religions themselves, as well as an experience to enmesh the audience well into the film. From practically every facet of quality, Antichrist excels in all areas: Regarding special effects, film grain & use of colours; image filtering, characters, soundtrack, artistic literary techniques; dialogue & themes with direct connotations towards the human condition. This is naming but a few of a potential from a most complex myriad. Expand
  32. JimF.
    Oct 26, 2009
    9
    The prologue, epilogue, and first three chapters contain some of the some of the most beautiful and mysterious and exciting filmmaking I've seen in ages. The fourth chapter is the most horrific and insane and upsetting filmmaking I hope I'll ever see. But that's all to be expected from a film about nature, I guess. The performances are, as usual for a Lars Von Trier film, The prologue, epilogue, and first three chapters contain some of the some of the most beautiful and mysterious and exciting filmmaking I've seen in ages. The fourth chapter is the most horrific and insane and upsetting filmmaking I hope I'll ever see. But that's all to be expected from a film about nature, I guess. The performances are, as usual for a Lars Von Trier film, riveting and seductive. This is certainly his coldest and most brutal film, and also his lushest. And, as usual, he raises more question than he answers, and for the people who hate Lars and his cinematic provocations this is just the most potent fuel for the fires of their contempt. But I think he's one of the most consistently fascinating filmmakers working today. Expand
  33. Marc
    Oct 26, 2009
    4
    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 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
  34. BunnyM.
    Feb 14, 2010
    10
    It's just that Americans can't understand it... so, watch avatar and continue to be stupid and pointless.
  35. [Anonymous]
    Oct 23, 2009
    4
    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. 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
  36. Ron
    Oct 24, 2009
    0
    Disgusting and appalling.
  37. lexg
    Oct 24, 2009
    4
    Seemed rather pointless to me.
  38. JoshuaS.
    Oct 25, 2009
    5
    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 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
  39. HarveyB
    Oct 27, 2009
    9
    "Antichrist" has some of the most beautiful cinematography ever seen. This is filled with metaphors and symbolism that truly captivate you into the film. This is a slasher film worth seeing, and although it gets far too graphic at times or "torture porn", it only amplifies the mood and tone of the film. Skip films like "Paranormal" activity and "Stepfather" and get this on video on demand "Antichrist" has some of the most beautiful cinematography ever seen. This is filled with metaphors and symbolism that truly captivate you into the film. This is a slasher film worth seeing, and although it gets far too graphic at times or "torture porn", it only amplifies the mood and tone of the film. Skip films like "Paranormal" activity and "Stepfather" and get this on video on demand so you can see why this is a visceral experience. you will not be disappointed. Expand
  40. KenB
    Nov 13, 2009
    9
    It's sad that some people associate anything to do with the genitals or sexuality with pornography. I don't understand why these people insist on going to films that appeal to adult themes. I suggest that they stick with Walt Disney productions. Everything will be immaculately clean and everyone will live happily everafter. This film is obviously full of controverial themes. But It's sad that some people associate anything to do with the genitals or sexuality with pornography. I don't understand why these people insist on going to films that appeal to adult themes. I suggest that they stick with Walt Disney productions. Everything will be immaculately clean and everyone will live happily everafter. This film is obviously full of controverial themes. But don't berate it just because you can't stomach the content. The film was beautifully filmed; that alone makes it worthwhile. And in the theatre I attended, the audience seemed to be spell-bound. What more can you want? Expand
  41. Jan 31, 2014
    5
    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 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 wholeGood 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
  42. Mar 17, 2011
    9
    A seriously underrated film exploring grief, anxiety, madness and the ideas we cling to when placed under such stress. Defoe is our eyes and ears into the film as a rational man who, gradually, in isolation with madness, slowly leads us into the maelstrom. Chaos reigns! Exploding with ideas, beautifully shot and with two excellent leading performances, especially Gainsbourg, whose hysteriaA seriously underrated film exploring grief, anxiety, madness and the ideas we cling to when placed under such stress. Defoe is our eyes and ears into the film as a rational man who, gradually, in isolation with madness, slowly leads us into the maelstrom. Chaos reigns! Exploding with ideas, beautifully shot and with two excellent leading performances, especially Gainsbourg, whose hysteria is genuinely distressing . At lot has been made of the violence, and at times it does disgust, but it is the psychological trauma on display here that truly disturbs. A great film and all the nay-sayers are wrong. Posterity will deem it so. Expand
  43. Dec 14, 2010
    10
    antichrist, directed by lars von trier

    it's about more than being top banana in the shock dept. if you consider antichrist violent then you haven't seen enough films. the violence is mundane. the violence is at select moments amid a storyline. if you're too dumb to see past human anatomy, blood, and sexual excitement you'll probably reject it and become territorial slamming the door
    antichrist, directed by lars von trier

    it's about more than being top banana in the shock dept.

    if you consider antichrist violent then you haven't seen enough films. the violence is mundane. the violence is at select moments amid a storyline. if you're too dumb to see past human anatomy, blood, and sexual excitement you'll probably reject it and become territorial slamming the door on the stranger or react with the defenses of a jackass using quips and humor because sincerity is your achilles heel. not everybody has the association of pain and strong love but those that do could learn something from the film. it's a love story. he loves his wife. we see the archetype of the fall from the first death to the return to eden. it's the mystery of life. we all pretend we know what we're doing until it begins collapsing. the more you know about what lies in the parameters of being human the less likely you are to be stable. the bodies in the trees roots highlight what is about to happen is a tradition.
    the path is reenacted. he loves her. he is overwhelmed by chaos.
    the witchcraft, the mutilation, the pain, just parameters of being human but a lead in to the crux of christ and the main characters big decision.
    he could have forgiven her and loved her but he kills her. he denies the light of christ. it's allegoric. the swarm of women in the woods following her death are symbolic of the seeds to grow eden again.
    it's my opinion the reappearing animals, including the talking fox, are the soul of god. god is present in the chaos.

    it's a modern classic, like irreversible, a couple of cheerleaders with pom pom's chanting, flesh is weak! flesh is weak! the light and shadow in the cinematography that's one thing. the light and shadow in the subtext of the characters emotions and fate, that's where the bar is raised.
    Expand
  44. Jan 25, 2011
    10
    Irresponsible stupid and unoriginal. Dafoe and Gainsbourg are good. It is a shame that they showed their genitals for this movie. This movie does not deserve there genitals. All that nudity and not once is it erotic. Its probably all the violence torture and mutilation mixed in with the sex that makes it so unerotic. A beautiful actor and actress and one big ugly film. I feel much like IIrresponsible stupid and unoriginal. Dafoe and Gainsbourg are good. It is a shame that they showed their genitals for this movie. This movie does not deserve there genitals. All that nudity and not once is it erotic. Its probably all the violence torture and mutilation mixed in with the sex that makes it so unerotic. A beautiful actor and actress and one big ugly film. I feel much like I did after watching requiem for a daydream, empty confused and upset. Ingmar Bergman would have laughed at this movie. Persona a masterpiece in cinema was unsettling and personal to the point of making the audience uncomfortable but is always a pleasure to watch truly a beautiful film. This is not that and showed not be even mentioned in the same sentence. Anti christ does not have a memorable line or story in it. A couple looses their son in a tragic accident they go into the woods and go crazy. Slasher film with a pornographic edge wrapped up in an art house movie. At least when I watch a porno I know what it is. I believe john waters was given a compliment in the seventies when porn was hip and someone said one of his movies was beyond porn but anti christ is not new or original it is Very one dimensional without any meaning or truth to it. At least a john waters movie is done with a sense of fun and it makes you laugh at the absurdity of it all. This movie is mean and malicious with very little redeeming qualities. Slow motion photography extreme close ups and visceral sound effects are all done with good technique reminiscent of david lynch movie without david lynch and the direction of a great film maker. Expand
  45. Mar 13, 2011
    10
    I'm not a film person and generally can't sit through them but this one is the exception. Yes, there are gruesome images and scenes of a sexual nature but in my opinion it is all within the context of the story. The first few scenes, in extra slow motion, are incredibly powerful. I defy anyone not to be moved by the opening images, however, I also think you need to understand depression,I'm not a film person and generally can't sit through them but this one is the exception. Yes, there are gruesome images and scenes of a sexual nature but in my opinion it is all within the context of the story. The first few scenes, in extra slow motion, are incredibly powerful. I defy anyone not to be moved by the opening images, however, I also think you need to understand depression, anxiety and panic attacks, even have personal experience, to fully appreciate what this film is all about. Although graphic in it's adult content, it's not really a film for entertainment, it's deeply thought provoking, shocking and artistic in the most absurd way. The acting is incredible from both characters. If you're looking for a film for sexual or violent gratification don't bother with this. If intellect is your thing, this is for you. Expand
  46. Sep 7, 2011
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I recall, a couple of years ago reading that Lars von Trier had shocked the film establishment by unavailing this cathartic and dark piece at the Cannes festival. At that point I earmarked it for later viewing as I thoroughly enjoyed what Iâ Expand
  47. Nov 23, 2011
    10
    Not the sort of film you'd take your girlfriend to see, nor a film you'd want someone walking in on you watching, but certainly a very brilliant one which you'll be left thinking about long after it's ended. Without resorting to cliched horror movie stereotypes or cheap scares, the director creates a terrifying and unsettling atmosphere with very powerful images and themes. To me, theNot the sort of film you'd take your girlfriend to see, nor a film you'd want someone walking in on you watching, but certainly a very brilliant one which you'll be left thinking about long after it's ended. Without resorting to cliched horror movie stereotypes or cheap scares, the director creates a terrifying and unsettling atmosphere with very powerful images and themes. To me, the characters were far more relatable and real than a lot of other reviews suggest- a man desperate to help his wife's depression, while naively arrogant about his ability to do so, a woman with deep insecurities and barely suppressed sociopathic tendencies. The setting of the majority of the film, in a woodland cabin, is intended to be a place of relaxation and retreat; instead the director shows the cruelty and horror of nature. The woods are not some idyllic place of fantasy happiness and tranquillity, but the arena of an often horrifying struggle for survival between the beings who live there, where death is a large part of life. An Eagle's chick falls accidentally to the ground where it is consumed by insects, a deer gives birth only to find the calf stillborn, a tree sheds acorns to create new life, though most of these will fall on the cabin roof and never grow- these images compound the guilt of the woman, while also being a constant reminder that death is a big part of nature. This setting gnaws away at the characters, allowing the film to sink further into its dark themes in a brilliant and powerful way. Expand
  48. May 15, 2013
    9
    I have no idea why any critic would give this movie a poor review. I am a HUGE horror movie follower, all things past and present, classic and novel, serious and tounge-in-cheek. You get the picture... Well for me this movie was not just great. It was profound. Primarily because it executes with a complex narrative that weaves on itself, has reacquiring visuals that add layers to theI have no idea why any critic would give this movie a poor review. I am a HUGE horror movie follower, all things past and present, classic and novel, serious and tounge-in-cheek. You get the picture... Well for me this movie was not just great. It was profound. Primarily because it executes with a complex narrative that weaves on itself, has reacquiring visuals that add layers to the story, and most of all was original in every possible way. So many horrors and thrillers fail to be original. Especially when the subject is Satan, Antichrist, etc. It is easy to fall into cliche. However, Lars von Trier is amazingly, mind-expandingly original with this film: plot, acting, visuals/ cinematography, musi, sound fx, and in what you actually find horrifying! Nothing I've every seen before is similar to this unique horror story! Lars von Trier took risks in how me made this film and they superbly paid off. Expand
Metascore
49

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 34
  2. Negative: 11 out of 34
  1. Reviewed by: Matthew Sorrento
    10
    If only von Trier could work beyond the poster art concept. Antichrist stubbornly fails as a gothic nightmare and meanders as a misanthropic two-character drama.
  2. 50
    Depending on your reaction to the cinematic outrages perpetrated by Danish director Lars von Trier (remember Dogville?), you might want to add or subtract two stars from the halfway (half-assed?) rating I just gave Antichrist.
  3. Reviewed by: Peter Brunette
    60
    Visually gorgeous to a fault and teeming with grandiose if often fascinating ideas that overwhelm the modest story that serves as their vehicle, this may be the least artistically successful film von Trier has ever made.