Antichrist

I guess it was a bit too much for most people - but then most people are too dumb for their own good. I dont usually like Lars Von Treirs, but I did like this. It really F*cked me up, and I enjoyed it. That opening scene was intense. They really got to the pain right away, huh?

She: "Nature is Satan's church".

The meaning of Antichrist: 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 than once as I feel most of the audiences may or may not understand the film and the symbolism. I know this just from 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, 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. She did so brilliant in this movie.

Willem Dafoe also did a brilliant performance in this movie. Dafoe is always great in everything and he sure was great this movie. Same with Charlottle Gainsbourg, I believed his 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 are known as "He" and "She", which is kind of interesting as their 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.

Lars Von Trier is the type of director that puts his own style and true art to his films, because the movies that he has directed (from what I have seen so far) have that unique style 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 of this movie was also re-used 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 ever 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 I was right.

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 itself. 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 the son 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.

My only problem with the movie is that it's really hard to take seriously sometimes just because of how over the top it can be. But that's it really.

Overall rating: Antichrist is a fantastic experimental horror movie with beautiful shots, excellent directing, and brilliant acting from Dafor and Charlotte.

I watch some messed up stuff, but this movie. OMG. the acting I've superb, some scenes had me looking for the remote so I can fast forward. Am absolutely amazing and powerful film.

I definitely need to watch this one again.

A bit too pretentious for its own good. Although still a good movie and it pushes the envelope somewhat on the gore. Well, in a scene at the end anyway.

That Nature is not evil nor good, but more bad than anything else is obvious i think, its survival, its random and so on, its sad.
I think the Movie portraits real life pretty good if you think about it.

So the movie itself is definitely a slow burn, but the art value and cinematography is amazing, and that’s what really keeps the movie moving. As for Lars von Trier, I’ve only seen a few of his movies so far, and he is definitely for the shock value, but it just so happens that the few movies I have seen, he seems to have a trademark and obsession with children being killed or dying. And to top it of, he always wants to show it off in very close detail, and express as prestigious art.

Great directing. I did not love the movie, but it is good. It reminded me for a moment to Misery.

I have to confess that shock value aside, it hardly made any emotional impact on me. While it starts off as a commentary on mental illness, the second half goes for a more generic cabin in the woods horror approach. Still worth watching for its artistic value. Both leads give really strong performances, and I liked the combination of glossy cinematography with the rough editing and awkward cuts.

This was abit too drawn out for me. I guess at least there was some rooting.