Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This movie sounds CRAZY. I have to see it.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/17/early-buzz-lars-von-triers-antichrist/#more-28429

Part of Ebert's review (from the above link):

“…goes beyond malevolence into the monstrous. Never before have a man and woman inflicted more pain upon each other in a movie. We looked in disbelief.” … “Whether this is a bad, good or great film is entirely beside the point. It is an audacious spit in the eye of society. It says we harbor an undreamed-of capacity for evil. It transforms a psychological treatment into torture undreamed of in the dungeons of history. Torturers might have been capable of such actions, but they would have lacked the imagination. Von Trier is not so much making a film about violence as making a film to inflict violence upon us, perhaps as a salutary experience. It’s been reported that he suffered from depression during and after the film. You can tell. This is the most despairing film I’ve ever have seen.”

...Why would you want to see it? Sounds like a big gimmick to grasp attention by "going there".

Don't see how it's a gimmick. Lars Von Trier's a fairly renowned filmmaker, it's not like he's making the next "Saw" or "Hostel." And from what I can gather, his most recent film (which this thread's about) "Antichrist" seems to be pretty personal and may have some sort of message to it. Add to that that the first reviews have been pretty polarizing and it shouldn't be hard to see why this film piques one's interest.

That and it sounds like a good turn-on flick.

I'm horny just thinking about it.

Lars von Trier is an amazing film maker; he made Dancer in the Dark, one of the best films ever, love it.

So naturally, with him directing and the wonderful Charlotte Gainsbourg as one of the leads, it's a must see for me. Looks nice and weird.

Uh oh, it got booed at the cannes film festival showing, and laughed at...

Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Don't see how it's a gimmick. Lars Von Trier's a fairly renowned filmmaker, it's not like he's making the next "Saw" or "Hostel." And from what I can gather, his most recent film (which this thread's about) "Antichrist" seems to be pretty personal and may have some sort of message to it. Add to that that the first reviews have been pretty polarizing and it shouldn't be hard to see why this film piques one's interest.

Actually, it is just like "Saw". It's a film that's so caught up in itself, that it thinks that it's something amazing. And yet it's another "Oh yeah, we did that" movie.

So you have seen it?

Yeah, honestly. You just found out about this movie when I created this topic a couple nights ago, yet you have such a strong negative reaction based on... what exactly?

Originally posted by MildPossession
Uh oh, it got booed at the cannes film festival showing, and laughed at...

Not good, but again, this makes me want to see it all the more so I can form my own opinion on it.

Originally posted by MildPossession
Lars von Trier is an amazing film maker; he made Dancer in the Dark, one of the best films ever, love it.

So naturally, with him directing and the wonderful Charlotte Gainsbourg as one of the leads, it's a must see for me. Looks nice and weird.


I love charlotte gainsbourg as well


I have never been one to do read reviews or always believe what a critic says so I may see this

Yeah, think she is a wonderful actress, like her music too.

The actual film didn't get booed, it was the very end that got the boos and groans when a dedication came up on the screen at the end for the wonderful film director Andrei Tarkovsky. His film Mirror was one influence on Lars von Trier's Antichrist.

Charlotte Gainsbourg won the Prix d'interprétation féminine/Best Actress award at this years Cannes Film Festival for her role in Antichrist! so look forwards to seeing her in it even more.

Originally posted by MildPossession
Yeah, think she is a wonderful actress, like her music too.

The actual film didn't get booed, it was the very end that got the boos and groans when a dedication came up on the screen at the end for the wonderful film director Andrei Tarkovsky. His film Mirror was one influence on Lars von Trier's Antichrist.

ok, thanks for telling me about me Mirror, I may try to find that to watch it

Originally posted by MildPossession
Uh oh, it got booed at the cannes film festival showing, and laughed at...

The people at the Cannes festival supposedly had a lot of walkouts on Irreversible, and that was still a great movie. I wouldn't let the reception there dictate your opinion of the movie.

It doesn't.

**** Cannes.

They hated Medellin in Entourage

Bunch of jerks.

But ya, I'm hearing great things about this film. Watch Martyr's and loved it, so I'm expecting big things from this French film as well.

looks awesomemmm

Just got back from the movies.

This film was incredible.

Damn, where are you in Europe? moi is jealous, and hates you. It doesn't even have an official release date here in Britain yet.

Oo just read this, the BBFC has rated it 18 here in Britain with absolutely no cuts.

Information here on their thoughts(It has a few spoilers in on what the disturbing acts are in the film, but it's an interesting read to see how our film system works here in Britain, and how they choose a 15 or 18 and so on for a film).



"ANTICHRIST is an English language drama from director Lars von Trier. It tells the story of a couple trying to come to terms with the death of their young son. After the mother experiences a mental breakdown, they retreat to an isolated cabin in the woods where the child's father, a therapist, hopes to help the mother to confront her fears. The film was classified '18' for strong real sex, bloody violence and self-mutilation.

At '18', the BBFC's Guidelines state that the more explicit images of sexual activity are unlikely to be permitted unless they can be exceptionally justified by context and the work is not a 'sex work'. A 'sex work' is defined as a work whose 'primary purpose is sexual arousal or stimulation'. It is clear that ANTICHRIST is not a 'sex work' but a serious drama exploring issues such as grief, loss, guilt and fear. The brief images of explicit real sex (sight of a penis penetrating a vagina during a consensual sex scene and sight of the man's penis being masturbated to climax) are exceptionally justified, in this context, by the manner in which they illustrate the film's themes and the nature of the couple's relationship. Their relationship is depicted throughout in a graphic and unflinching fashion, both psychologically and physically. The BBFC has permitted comparable explicit images in a number of previous features at the '18' level (eg L'EMPIRE DES SENS, 9 SONGS, SHORTBUS and Lars von Trier's earlier film, THE IDIOTS) where it has been clear that the purpose of the work - and the individual images in question - is not simply to arouse viewers but to illustrate characters, relationships and themes.

ANTICHRIST also contains two scenes showing violence towards genitals or genital mutilation. In one case, the man's genitals are hit heavily (although this is not shown on screen), resulting in sight of blood in his semen when he ejaculates. In the other case, the distraught woman cuts off her own clitoris using a pair of scissors. This act of self-mutilation is shown in close up, although the image is only on screen for a few seconds. The shot in question exceeds the BBFC's Guidelines at '15', where 'the strongest gory images are unlikely to be acceptable' and where 'violence may be strong but may not dwell on the infliction of pain or injury'. Even at '18' the BBFC recognises that the scene will be shocking and offensive to some viewers. However, the Board is aware of no evidence to suggest that the viewing of this scene is likely to be harmful to adults. The scene is not presented in an eroticised or attractive manner and is not likely to encourage emulation or arousal. Accordingly, the scene is acceptable at '18' where, in line with the consistent findings of the BBFC's public consultations, the BBFC's Guideline concerns will not normally override the wish that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the law.

The film contains other examples of strong violence, including a scene in which the woman drills a hole through the man’s leg with a bit and brace before bolting a large grindstone to the injured limb. Once again, although the scene exceeds the rubric of the '15' Guidelines, it was not felt to be harmful to adult viewers. The film also contains scenes of strong simulated sex, including female masturbation. These scenes exceed the '15' Guideline test that 'Sexual activity may be portrayed but without strong detail' but are acceptable at the '18' level.

I guess the video on demand thing is an American thing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1200742/CHRISTOPHER-HART-What-DOES-film-banned-days.html

Read this, the guy hasn't even seen the film!! It gives some of the film away, so if not bothered, click away.

Nothing surprising coming from the Daily Mail newspaper.

Amusing, really amusing. AND will they never learn, wonderful wonderful advertising for the film. I believe a % who would not have bothered with the film will see it just to see what all the fuss is about.

Ha ha.

Am I the only one who has seen this movie? 313

From the article

I've just seen it, and talk about the film critics exaggerating over everything in the film as usual... especially that moron critic above that I linked to who hasn't even seen it.

I thought the film was very good but not amazing, and had some moments I could have done without, for example I did in fact laugh at the Fox talking...

It's funny, the most disturbing thing for me in the film was the violence towards the animals, and the animals hurt etc, especially the Deer with the dead fawn hanging out of it.

Definitely worth seeing because the cinematography/art direction is fantastic. Charlotte Gainsbourg was also fantastic, a brave actress in this.

This movie is eerie. It reminded me of the first time i saw, Magic. It made me feel like i was going insane. I guess for that aspect it was a good movie. There is also something about the tone of the film. It just gave me some eerie vibes. The only real problem i had was the pacing. Many scenes did tend to drag on.

Looks interesting...

It's very interesting.

The release in Australia has a really clever poster design. Just had a look at it.

I saw this earlier, and I was rather impressed.

While I do agree with MP that the critic response to this film has been a bit over the top and exaggerated, it was quite disturbing, but not for the reasons most have said.

Much like Salo, the thing that I found most unsettling in this film was a kind of extremely despairing and hopeless tone that lasted through the entire film; it actually felt as if real evil somehow attached itself to this movie.

Other aspects were great. The acting was outstanding, especially the actress. Very daring performances.

It was also amazing to look at, an art house horror film is so very rare, when one comes along that is actually of high quality like this one was, it's always quite an experience. Some brilliant imagery in this film.

Definitely a quality film, here.

Oh yeah, the talking fox, though, that was a bit goofy.

It's not like we needed the fox to say the words anyway, the same words came up in the separate chapter cards from what I can remember.

Indeed they were.

Looks really well crafted but after reading whats it about...not sure if I am fan of what he does. Thus prob will skip this one.

Astonishing visual film. Especially the scenes in slow motion when she's walking up to the cabin in her mind.

I really don't think the controversy over some of it is warrented though. Wow...You see a penis going into a vagina for a fraction of a second...Big deal. The only scene of any disturbance in the cliterodectomy. Maybe the choking scene too.

I think mountains and mole hills apply here. Not the film I expected at all.

Indeed, the controversy certainly didn't fit the actual film. Critics are going soft, maybe. Pussies.

I think I said this in another thread, the film should have been called 'The Whore of Babylon'.

Besides the incredible directing/cinematography, this film is boring. Not my cup of tea.

Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed, the controversy certainly didn't fit the actual film. Critics are going soft, maybe. Pussies.

Supposedly people had to leave the theatres and such.

What the hell is happening to these supposed movie critics? I saw this with three people from my class, two of them were girls. What kind of person, who critiques movies for a god damned living, would find themselves incapable of seeing this through? Buncha prudes.

I will see this tomorrow. I am kind of grossed out by sexual violence I have been told I will be seeing. But I guess it's better I am warned...

If you can see things like Martyrs/Inside, then AntiChrist shouldn't be much of a stretch in the violence/gore department. I know the other two were not 'sexual violence' but still.

I found the scene in the film Inside where the belly is cut open more disturbing than the 'woman' in AntiChrist self-mutilating her vagina . The scenes from Inside stayed with me longer than anything in AntiChrist.

i have been a fan of charlotte gainsbourg for many years..

this film was total shiite

Ok, I have seen it. It was cringe inducing to say at least, but I liked it.

I find it is difficult to point to exactly what this film was supposed to be saying, but one overtone which struck me the most, and which I thought was absolutely amazing is that things which are attributed to God, are actually Satan's work. Brilliant. It felt like it was saying that it wasn't God that created the world, but Satan. It showed nature as cruel, evil and unforgiving. Which it kind of is. When She said that women are most influenced by nature, indicated that female is the inherent evil.

I did not see this movie as misogynist at all. I found it to be an interesting idea.
Cinematography was amazing, as was symbolism. He and She as well - firstly, nameless, then He the voice of science, reason and rationality, She is the emotion filled one unable to rationalize.
The typical things which are attributed to men and women. The woods being called Eden. Overtones of sex, violence and pain. The three beggers.

I would not re-watch it though. It is far too dark and disturbing. And not just ''the scenes'' but the whole overtone of the movie.

That was the main theme of the film, that the world was not created by god, but by satan.

The film was apparently made while the director was suffering from depression, which accounts for the infinitely bleak tone.

Not sure if I want to see this one. Willem Dafoe scare the hell out of me.

Going to see this tonight.

Alright, so I saw this last night and I kind of have mixed feelings. First off, like many of you said, the acting (by Dafoe AND Gainsbourg) and cinematography were both fantastic, no doubt about it. But I had trouble with what von Trier was trying to say. I felt like he was throwing a bunch of imagery and symbolism at the audience without putting it in any context or providing any explanation. I felt like the movie made/makes much more sense to him than it does anyone viewing it. I applaud it for it's consistently dark/disturbing tone, the dedicated acting and the beautiful visuals, but I can't say much more than that. The characters themselves weren't even all that likable. Lars von Trier has a tendency to take an extremely likable/sympathetic character (ie Dancer in the Dark) and make him or her suffer endlessly, which evokes emotion obviously. When the characters suffered in this movie, I found myself less affected by it. I was very sympathetic toward the woman throughout the first half hour or so until she got a bit too crazy for me to care.

Anyway, this movie was worth watching once for me, but I don't think I'll return to it, I didn't get much out of it unfortunately.

Great date movie though.

And yeah the fox was ridiculous.