Antichrist

IFC Films | Release Date: October 23, 2009

7.1	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 228 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

gonzologicJan 31, 2014

Good acting and beautiful cinematography, but beyond that I can't recommend it. This was just bleak, even for Lars von Trier, who I usually enjoy. Sort of picks up in the last 30 - 45 minutes, but the payoff isn't worth the dull first threeGood acting and beautiful cinematography, but beyond that I can't recommend it. This was just bleak, even for Lars von Trier, who I usually enjoy. Sort of picks up in the last 30 - 45 minutes, but the payoff isn't worth the dull first three quarters. Yes, I could dissect the themes and symbolism and probably have a rewarding conversation about it now, having seen it... but meh. The whole thing (very) basically boiled down to "wah, human nature sucks, here's Willem Dafoe being a dick and Charlotte Gainsbourg crying about it for two hours."… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

AlienSpaceBatsJul 27, 2011

Provocative, demented, ultimately pointless with an undercurrent of theological nonsense. Should not be taken seriously, best viewed as an exercise in atmosphere.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

lexgOct 24, 2009

Seemed rather pointless to me.

3 of 6 users found this helpful

TTW107Apr 12, 2012

Some of the camera shots are absolutely beautiful but there is a rather disturbing segment of, i don't know, about 5 seconds that should not have been in the film and literally makes me never want to see the movie again. I am very tolerableSome of the camera shots are absolutely beautiful but there is a rather disturbing segment of, i don't know, about 5 seconds that should not have been in the film and literally makes me never want to see the movie again. I am very tolerable of things I see in movies because it is fake and I know this but this part crossed the line, coming from me, that says a lot.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

smijatovDec 20, 2010

This is rather disappointing, considering that it comes from one of the best European directors nowadays. Surely, von Trier's style is clearly visible in this film, technically and as well with his strange choice of theme. The provocativeThis is rather disappointing, considering that it comes from one of the best European directors nowadays. Surely, von Trier's style is clearly visible in this film, technically and as well with his strange choice of theme. The provocative nature of the film is also very typical of him.
However, the gruesomeness, cruelty and violence are something new - at least visually. All this films deal with the nature of humans, but they are never so visually disturbing. This is where he went too far. Also, it is rather open-ended leaving the viewer rather confused, and largely disgusted.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

JoshuaS.Oct 25, 2009

A film that ultimately seems to polarize its viewers, Von Trier's "Antichrist", left me scratching my head. I admired the performers and their courage onscreen, the photography was stunning and moody, but by the end I felt like I had A film that ultimately seems to polarize its viewers, Von Trier's "Antichrist", left me scratching my head. I admired the performers and their courage onscreen, the photography was stunning and moody, but by the end I felt like I had been told 3/4 of a story and wasn't let in on the point. Truth be told, I left more bored with the film philosophically than I left fascinated by the imagery and the acting. Does Von Trier have a point about... I don't know... something? Or is this merely an exercise in self congratulatory film-making where the final product is meant merely for himself? It has an undeniable impact on the audience, but the pointlessness of the film simply left me shrugging my shoulders, not understanding what the fuss was about.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful

MarcOct 26, 2009

Some great camera work, but boils down to two characters in exponential agony and grief for 2hrs and its torture to sit through, mainly because I found no empathy with two thoroughly unlikable leads, personally I cared more for the Some great camera work, but boils down to two characters in exponential agony and grief for 2hrs and its torture to sit through, mainly because I found no empathy with two thoroughly unlikable leads, personally I cared more for the disemboweled fox. In short I became so bored with everything that was going on and by the time Gainsborough started mutilating Defoe and her own genitals I really had just lost interest, not shocking just self indulgent garbage really.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful

Paul_YoonSep 20, 2010

Too much violent and too much explicitly sexual scenes hide the 'real' value of this movie. Antichrist fails to approach the plausible ending and describe a gothic nightmare.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

schmidtfaceFeb 12, 2011

This was one of the strangest movies I had ever seen. I would only recommend it to people that don't have anything better to do. There are worse movies out there and I should probably give it a little more than a 4 but I'll never watch itThis was one of the strangest movies I had ever seen. I would only recommend it to people that don't have anything better to do. There are worse movies out there and I should probably give it a little more than a 4 but I'll never watch it again, and don't feel like it quite deserves a 5. The movie rested entirely on the 'he' 'she' characters and if it wasn't for Defoe and Gainsborough playing the part, the story would be a sick horror perversion with a lack of substance.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

[Anonymous]Oct 23, 2009

I saw this movie in France over the summer not knowing what to expect. Based on the title, I figured it would be a campy or run-of-the-mill horror film. This is absolutely NOT the case. While the events of the film are indeed horrifying, I saw this movie in France over the summer not knowing what to expect. Based on the title, I figured it would be a campy or run-of-the-mill horror film. This is absolutely NOT the case. While the events of the film are indeed horrifying, this is not your typical horror film. People expecting a 'Hostel'-esque romp of slaughter will be bored to death until well into the movie. People expecting a movie about loss and coping with death will be scarred by the terrifying and appallingly graphic violence and mutilation towards the end of the film. And women everywhere will probably feel insulted like I did, as the film seems to suggest that a woman is featured as the title's antichrist.' A lot of the film is shot beautifully, and the acting is superb. But large chunks of the movie (the parts that aren't pornography and mutilation) are presented as a stereotypical 'art film,' and it was generally off-putting to watch, as if the director was just daring us to dislike it. And parts of it that are supposed to be taken seriously are just laughable and awkward. All I can say is that I feel bad for Willem Dafoe's genitals.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

RobertBroganSep 27, 2015

Lars von Trier is a talented and imaginative director. I find his films interesting, but never exactly "like" them. Antichrist is not so much horrifying as alternatively interesting and repugnant. The graphic bits feel out-of-place and in badLars von Trier is a talented and imaginative director. I find his films interesting, but never exactly "like" them. Antichrist is not so much horrifying as alternatively interesting and repugnant. The graphic bits feel out-of-place and in bad taste; it is as if the film is saying: "Now be horrified!" If the film is working psychologically, there is no need for that, and if it is not then inserting graphic elements do not exactly help. Cannot recommend the film to anyone. Horror fans will not find the film scary. Art-house fans will probably be put off.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

AproxxAug 14, 2018

I admit the movie is great at making you feel bad, deppressed (and oppressed) with imagery and visuals, incredible acting from both leads, and graphic and painful scenes.

So that's great. But what Im not so sure is: What's the point of allI admit the movie is great at making you feel bad, deppressed (and oppressed) with imagery and visuals, incredible acting from both leads, and graphic and painful scenes.

So that's great.

But what Im not so sure is: What's the point of all this?

The themes (self hatred, deppression, guilt) are all there, but I feel they lose coherence. Its like it touches so many dark human emotions that it ends in kind of a contradiction.

SPOILERS..............................................................

I felt that a good theme of the movie was how men deal with painful emotions by just abusing women and taking advantage in the more emotional female to let them charge with all the guilt in a given situation of shared guilt (like in this case)... Like a message of how men just reppress those emotions and results in anger against women, explaining misogyny (or whatever)... But if that's a dumb reading of the movie, its just doesn't hold up anyway..… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

pwasilewskaJun 28, 2017

I'm not really sure if I understood it very well. Von Trier is always trying to be so original. It moved me, but unfortunately it doesn't mean it was a good movie. Maybe I'm just not a fun of that kind of art. I need to watch it again toI'm not really sure if I understood it very well. Von Trier is always trying to be so original. It moved me, but unfortunately it doesn't mean it was a good movie. Maybe I'm just not a fun of that kind of art. I need to watch it again to check if my opinion stay the same.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Tcurran2Dec 23, 2017

Lars Von Trier's controversial film is not for the faint of heart. Or even for those who don't consider themselves faint of heart. Or for small children. Or really, for anybody at all. It is quite a curious film, as it were. Its breathtakingLars Von Trier's controversial film is not for the faint of heart. Or even for those who don't consider themselves faint of heart. Or for small children. Or really, for anybody at all. It is quite a curious film, as it were. Its breathtaking cinematography is juxtaposed with its sickeningly depraved subject matter, whose philosophical musings on the nature of mankind (or rather, womankind) and misogyny, are probably less thought provoking or effective then Von Trier would've liked. But then again, who knows what Von Trier was aiming for, exactly? The notoriously mischievous auteur would hardly give a straight answer if asked. This film crosses the threshold from art-house to nuthouse after a particularly sickening scene involving genital mutilation, which, if you'll take my word (and believe me, you should) would not be prudent to go into detail. Still, this film manages to maintain a powerful hold over the viewer, for better or for worse.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews