Antichrist

User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 154 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 20 out of 154

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. Jul 13, 2015
    9
    She: "Nature is Satan's church".

    The story is about a grieving couple retreat to 'Eden', their isolated cabin in the woods, where they hope to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage. But nature takes its course and things go from bad to worse. The meaning of Antichrist can be best described as a person or thing regarded as supremely evil or as a fundamental enemy or opponen
    She: "Nature is Satan's church".

    The story is about a grieving couple retreat to 'Eden', their isolated cabin in the woods, where they hope to repair their broken hearts and troubled marriage. But nature takes its course and things go from bad to worse.

    The meaning of Antichrist can be best described as a person or thing regarded as supremely evil or as a fundamental enemy or opponen (the battle between Christ and the Antichrist). A film like Antichrist must viewed more then once as I feel most of the audiences may or may not understand the film and the films symbolism. I know this just by the reviews that this movie got and it's shockingly bad, I mean really low ratings from some people and one article called this movie "An arty value mess", from some sh*tty movie magazine. The movie also got booed at the Cannes Film Festival and I'm here shock about all this, because Antichrist was a great movie and a much better film then what I heard from people. Is it f**ked up? yes and it can put some people off by it's gory sexual imagine, but it's the special kind of f**ked up that makes the movie and it's symbolism work by it's hidden messages and it's graphic imagine to get that message across.

    Charlottle Gainsbourg did a outstanding and believable performance as the damaged mother. Her scenes with her dealing with the lost of her son was truly heartbreaking. She questions life and blames herself for what happened and I did felt like the world was ending on her and she did so brilliant in this movie.

    Willem Dafoe also did a brilliant performance in this movie. Dafoe is always great in everything and I'm not talking Speed 2 or Spider-Man. I'm only talking about movies that he was in that he did a great performance in and in Antichrist he once again did. Same with Charlottle Gainsbourg I believed he's pain and hard work of trying to keep he's wife from losing it and all of that is shown in Dafoe performance and it was excellent.

    Willem and Charlotte character's don't have names in the movie but they only known as He and She which is kind of interesting as they names main a mystery. I like that the movie doesn't give the character's in the movie names and the fact that the other people in the movie they faces are blurred so you really don't who they are as Willem and Charlotte are the only ones not to get they face blurred. It gives you the viewer thinking about that and the hidden meaning of it.

    The director of the film Lars Von Trier who is the type of director that puts he's own style and true art to he's films, because the movies that he directed that I've seen so far have that unique arty style to it that make me feel that the director what's to show true art to cinema, but I also noticed that he sometimes re-use shots or the type of sound in his later movies as it's art style I guest? Like the slow motion shots in Antichrist will later be use in the film Melancholia. The opening to Antichrist will also be re-use in Nymphomaniac, so it's very clear that this director will make something brilliantly artistic in his movie and thought to do it again later on, yeah one of those directors. But all that aside I think Lars Von Trier directing in this movie was well done and quite unique in a artistic style.

    Antichrist has probably one of the best opening to a movie I've seen. It's all shot in slow motion and it's black and white with some beautiful music playing in the background. When I saw that opening scene I known straight away that this movie is going to be fantastic and it was.

    Now the hidden symbolism in Antichrist can be easily analysis like these a scene and this isn't a spoiler so your save here, but anywhere Dafoe character comes across a fox that he thought was sleeping but that wasn't the case as the fox wasn't sleeping or resting but more like eating it's self. I thought about this and maybe this might be a symbolism of Dafoe character eating it's own guilt and this is shown by the fox eating itself, I mean he might be seeing the fox, because him and he's wife feel guilty for they sons death. What makes it worse is the fox saying "Chaos Reigns".

    The movie is really messed up and I really do mean that. It left me feeling cold for half an hour. It's been about four days since I've seen the movie and after putting my thoughts together and what I think the movies hidden message can easily be spoiled to some who may have interest on seeing this movie, so I'm just going to leave you with that thought in mind of what the movie is about and how messed up the movie is going to make you feel.

    For problems with the movie: I only have a little problem with the movie and that's it's really hard to take seriously sometimes just because of how over the top it is. But that's it really.

    Overall Antichrist is a fantastic experimental horror movie with beautiful shots, excellent directing and brilliant acting from Dafor and Charlotte.
    Expand
  2. 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.
  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. 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
  5. Oct 29, 2015
    8
    Its disturbing at times but the cinematography is beautiful at many points in the movie, although sometimes there's a few pointless shots throughout. Lars Von Trier got the creepy atmosphere just right on this one
  6. 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.
  7. Feb 5, 2013
    10
    For better or for worse, (probably) there shall never be another film like Antichrist.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Jesse
    Oct 23, 2009
    10
    Like Miike's Audition, Antichrist's quotidian moments provide a baseline for the truly powerful scenes to shatter.
  20. RolandB.
    Oct 23, 2009
    10
    I've never felt so calm and so horrified.
  21. AdamM.
    Oct 23, 2009
    9
    This is without doubt a highly underrated film.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. BunnyM.
    Feb 14, 2010
    10
    It's just that Americans can't understand it... so, watch avatar and continue to be stupid and pointless.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
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. 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. 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.