Antichrist

User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 155 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 20 out of 155

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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. [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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  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. 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.
  14. 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
  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. 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
  17. Feb 5, 2013
    10
    For better or for worse, (probably) there shall never be another film like Antichrist.
  18. 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
  19. Mar 22, 2016
    1
    The acting was brilliant, but with Willem Dafoe what else would you expect. The director should seek professional help. I feel bad that Mr Dafoe was dragged into this mess. The movie starts off like it may be thought provoking, but that wasn't the case. Just a "how many **** up images can we put into one movie" flick. If it wasn't for the two leading actors this movie would be in the sameThe acting was brilliant, but with Willem Dafoe what else would you expect. The director should seek professional help. I feel bad that Mr Dafoe was dragged into this mess. The movie starts off like it may be thought provoking, but that wasn't the case. Just a "how many **** up images can we put into one movie" flick. If it wasn't for the two leading actors this movie would be in the same bin as Human Centipede. Expand
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Sep 27, 2015
    6
    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 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 thenLars 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
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.