User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 129 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 97 out of 129
  2. Negative: 17 out of 129

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 15, 2014
    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.
  2. Jan 31, 2014
    Good acting and beautiful cinematography, but beyond that I can't recommend it. This was just bleak, even for Lars von Trier, who I usually enjoy. Sort of picks up in the last 30 - 45 minutes, but the payoff isn't worth the dull first 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
  3. Jan 7, 2014
    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 get unhinged, trust me. Expand
  4. Jul 22, 2013
    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.
  5. May 15, 2013
    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 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
  6. Feb 24, 2013
    Not for'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.
  7. Feb 5, 2013
    For better or for worse, (probably) there shall never be another film like Antichrist.
  8. Oct 15, 2012
    I found an intreresting take on Antichrist here:

    Throughout much of human history, the forest has always been considered a place of danger and foreboding and in Lars Von Trier
  9. Oct 7, 2012
    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 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. Expand
  10. May 19, 2012
    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. Apr 12, 2012
    Some of the camera shots are absolutely beautiful but there is a rather disturbing segment of, i don't know, about 5 seconds that should not have been in the film and literally makes me never want to see the movie again. I am very 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.
  12. Nov 23, 2011
    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, 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
  13. Sep 15, 2011
    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.
  14. Sep 7, 2011
    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. Jul 27, 2011
    Provocative, demented, ultimately pointless with an undercurrent of theological nonsense. Should not be taken seriously, best viewed as an exercise in atmosphere.
  16. Jun 17, 2011
    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.
  17. GMU
    Jun 12, 2011
    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
  18. Jun 7, 2011
    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.
  19. Apr 1, 2011
    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. Mar 17, 2011
    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 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
  21. Mar 13, 2011
    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
  22. Feb 12, 2011
    This was one of the strangest movies I had ever seen. I would only recommend it to people that don't have anything better to do. There are worse movies out there and I should probably give it a little more than a 4 but I'll never watch 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
  23. Jan 25, 2011
    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 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
  24. Dec 20, 2010
    This is rather disappointing, considering that it comes from one of the best European directors nowadays. Surely, von Trier's style is clearly visible in this film, technically and as well with his strange choice of theme. The 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
  25. Dec 14, 2010
    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.
  26. Nov 17, 2010
    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 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
  27. Sep 20, 2010
    Too much violent and too much explicitly sexual scenes hide the 'real' value of this movie. Antichrist fails to approach the plausible ending and describe a gothic nightmare.
  28. Aug 26, 2010
    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 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

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
    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
    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.