Antichrist

Reality|Bites

Reality|Bites

Reality|Bites

Permabanned
Joined
5 Apr 2006
Posts
7,704
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0870984/

Starring William Dafoe

Has anyone seen this film?

I've just finished watching it and it has to be one of the weirdest films I have ever watched.

It is a very slow quiet film but it does have some very very shocking moments as well which did freak me out.


If you have the patience to watch a slow movie, I highly recommend it.

After watching it could someone please explain the very last scene to me.
 
This is a quite an arty movie, its good but at the same time I can't really say I totally enjoyed it, it dragged out a bit aswell. Very creepy movie non the less.
 
Fantastic film and borderline masterpiece imho.

***SPOILERS BELOW***






































All the women at the end was basically Lars von Trier showing that her situation wasn't an isolated case and that all women are evil!!! :eek:

When she was in the cabin the previous year she convinced herself through reading/research that women were evil, beleiving she was evil was what motivated her choices at the end!

It's not a simple couple who are devastated by the death of their child. The child himself is Lucifer, who fell from the sky provoking pain, sorrow and desperation (the three small figures).

From then on,
sex will be only pain and punishment, Eden will be the place of the ancient fears where the 'tremendum and fascinans' mystery of the nature will be revealed.
The battle between man and woman becomes THE war of sense and instinct.

In this vision, woman becomes a totemic and absolut witch and once she's burned to death everything gets clear. The movie starts with a falling and ends with a rising. Eden is full again, nature turns good again. You can't see the uphill but you can understand it's a rising toward a bigger promise."
 
Endured this at the cinema a month or two ago. Utter rubbish. I did burst out laughing at one part though.
 
Burt said:
Endured this at the cinema a month or two ago. Utter rubbish. I did burst out laughing at one part though.
Click to expand...

Not your cup of tea fair enough but 'utter rubbish' is complete nonsense :rolleyes:

Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg's acting in it was breath taking for a start, I'm guessing it all went a bit over your head as you do need to think and engage your brain to really understand and enjoy this film.

''burst out laughing at one part though.'' :rolleyes:
It thanks to idiots like this that I don't bother going to the cinema any more, absolutely nothing in this beautiful film is laugh worthy unless your a moron tbh!!
 
.G0 said:
Not your cup of tea fair enough but 'utter rubbish' is complete nonsense :rolleyes:

Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg's acting in it was breath taking for a start, I'm guessing it all went a bit over your head as you do need to think and engage your brain to really understand and enjoy this film.

''burst out laughing at one part though.'' :rolleyes:
It thanks to idiots like this that I don't bother going to the cinema any more, absolutely nothing in this beautiful film is laugh worthy unless your a moron tbh!!
Click to expand...

just because he doesn't have the same taste in films to you doesn't make him a moron. some people seem to think they know it all just because they like "arty" films. i bet you'd feel quite at home on imbd
 
To be fair, the trailer for this looks pretty good. Some really nice cinematography in places.

DJDaz said:
just because he doesn't have the same taste in films to you doesn't make him a moron. some people seem to think they know it all just because they like "arty" films. i bet you'd feel quite at home on imbd
Click to expand...

I don't get why people can't like all types of movies though. Everyone seems to fall into opposite camps, either the one that worships Arthouse cinema and derides standard Hollywood fare as trash or the one that likes more conventional films but despises stuff like Antichrist for being boring.

I mean, Antichrist might well be boring but that doesn't make it a bad film and the dullness might be deliberate on the part of the director.
 
Last edited:
.G0 said:
Not your cup of tea fair enough but 'utter rubbish' is complete nonsense :rolleyes:

Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg's acting in it was breath taking for a start, I'm guessing it all went a bit over your head as you do need to think and engage your brain to really understand and enjoy this film.

''burst out laughing at one part though.'' :rolleyes:
It thanks to idiots like this that I don't bother going to the cinema any more, absolutely nothing in this beautiful film is laugh worthy unless your a moron tbh!!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the part with the fox was so ridiculous I couldn't contain myself.

This film is pretentious to the point of stupidity. It seems like Lars von Trier just threw together a haphazard plot, tried out a few unique camera shots, added some unneccessarily controversial footage for publicity and somehow tacked on a couple of decent actors (which is not enough to save the movie). The whole thing reeked of desperation to me.

I know the guy is capable of creating good work (Dogville is excellent) - but this is not an example of it.
 
.G0 said:
Not your cup of tea fair enough but 'utter rubbish' is complete nonsense :rolleyes:

Willem Dafoe & Charlotte Gainsbourg's acting in it was breath taking for a start, I'm guessing it all went a bit over your head as you do need to think and engage your brain to really understand and enjoy this film.

''burst out laughing at one part though.''
It thanks to idiots like this that I don't bother going to the cinema any more, absolutely nothing in this beautiful film is laugh worthy unless your a moron tbh!!
Click to expand...
Oh don't be daft. I thought it a dreadful turgid film and it certainly didn't go over my head, how condescending.

If we all liked the same film there would only be one film. Saying a film is rubbish doesn't mean that person is too stupid to understand the oh so subtle allegories. It could just mean the film is simply a sophomoric pile of drivel. Mistakenly praised by pretentious so called art lovers with the desperate need to feel special. Derived from the certain knowledge they've found meaning where other less enlightened don't (or can't).

Bleak existential twaddle, grrr grrr 'chaos reigns', yep sure does. Now Transformers 2 that's a film, big robots with guns and Megan Fox running in slowmo, yeehaw.
 
Last edited:
Even as a hardcore horror fan and gorehound, I actually found the first half of the movie to be far better than the rest. I've never liked Von Trier, but I must admit that the opening scene involving the child was absolutely beautiful. Just a pity it all went downhill from there, especially with the ridiculously laughable "talking" fox.

It's not a terrible movie - the performances are great, and the film never misses a beat or loses track of the characters' motivations. Dare I say, most of the symbolic violence actually works to reinforce the mind-state of Defoe's wife (can't remember character names right now). I just don't know what it is about Von Trier that can take something like this and make it a borderline snoozefest.

So, yeah, fantastic opening scene, gripping first half, daringly graphic violence (in context, too), but ultimately leaves you feeling hollow and unsatisfied.

Was that his point?
 
Makunouchi said:
I thought the points he was trying to make with the film were pretty obvious to be honest.
Click to expand...

I thought they were pretty obvious too. And I really enjoyed the film. It's clear its meaning did go above most peoples' heads, but then I dare say most people were watching it for the wrong reasons off the back of the sensationalism it created.
 
Makunouchi said:
I thought the points he was trying to make with the film were pretty obvious to be honest. I wish this could have been kept in the original thread, then I might have been bothered to contribute.
Click to expand...

Well, this thread is now here for discussion so why don't you enlighten me? (Meant in the best possible way, not a sarcy remark).

I understand the themes of the film, why the wife felt the primal need to ensure the only remaining figure of family/love (ie. the husband) never left, and her ultimate psychotic aversion to the sexual organs that led her fatal abandonment of her child. In my previous post I've mentioned that the film itself handles this excellently. It's easy to understand.

However, by the time the credits came round I had an empty, vacuous feeling about the work. Von Trier has remarked (to paraphrase, I think) that this was an angry, depressing film - what I mean is, perhaps the emptiness is actually an intention of the work?
 
Pestilence said:
what I mean is, perhaps the emptiness is actually an intention of the work?
Click to expand...

I'd guess yes. It probably is supposed to leave you unsatisfied. Although (I haven't seen Antichrist) Funny Games U.S. had a weird way of leaving satisfaction despite the depressing turn of events (I haven't seen the original Funny Games so I don't know how that compares).
 
Chimerical said:
I'd guess yes. It probably is supposed to leave you unsatisfied. Although (I haven't seen Antichrist) Funny Games U.S. had a weird way of leaving satisfaction despite the depressing turn of events (I haven't seen the original Funny Games so I don't know how that compares).
Click to expand...

Quite. I thought the Funny Games remake had a very good coda at the end, which did tie things off nicely in a sordid little bow.

I'll probably give AntiChrist a rewatch some time soon. To be fair to it, it's the first Von Trier film (I haven't seen The Kingdom) that I've actually been able to stomach the whole of. Watching it while a bit more sober might lead to a greater appreciation of it. As I've said, it's certainly not a terrible film and right now I'd lean more towards the "like it" camp of its very divided audience.
 
Old thread revival, but I just had to say this film sucked.

Got an hour in, and was so close to switching it off. I just thought I would stick it out. Why didn't I go with my gut?

I don't mind arty films, but this was absolute twaddle.

Think I'll just avoid arty stuff for a while and stick to films which are entertaining. Not that those are easy to come by these days, arthouse or mainstream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom