Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more

Antichrist [Blu-ray]
Format: Blu-ray|Change
Price:£6.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime

on 3 December 2017
Such a thought provoking film. Willem Defoe is brilliant. Some of the scenes are a little bit difficult to take on but thats the nature of the film. All in all it is a great buy.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 9 August 2014
The film does somehow transmit long periods of tention without really going anywhere.
After the tragic loss of their young son, the couples marriage is at breaking point, they decide to try and mend their marriage and come to terms with the loss of their young son by travelling to their cabin which is situated in the middle of a forest and is remote as it gets.
'William Defoe' try's to help his partner (Charlotte Gainsboroug) through her grief, but tention mounts, the getaway begins to turn into a nightmare.
With some pretty graphic violence along with explicit sex- scenes the film does hold your attention.
worth watching if but ----once.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 26 April 2016
This is the first Lars Von Trier film I have watched. It is really rather disturbing and apart from some shots which are quite beautiful it is a very difficult film to watch. The message of the film and the themes explored in it, I think could have been better explained. The main problem with the film is that in trying to explain to us the message of the the film and expand it, Von Trier shows us some extremely unsettling and grotesque images which I guess are suppose to tie up the meaning of the film but, unfortunately in it's extreme content ultimately blurs and kills any sort of meaning one could get from the film. What could have been rather a good film ends up losing itself in its shocking images and you don't end up leaving the film thinking about the characters, how much grief 'she' is truly experiencing and what drove her to do the things she did etc. etc. You just think, what those scissors went through is quite an ordeal. The performances were very good, the acting wasn't a fault. Is this film a good film? It's not a bad film. Would I watch it again? Only if I was with some mates who wanted to watch something a bit more extreme. Did you enjoy it? I'm not sure this is a film which anyone can really enjoy, maybe if you use the term extremely lightly then some people may say yes. Do I recommend it? If you like a film which opens with a slo-mo rather graphic sex scene which lasts for about 10 minutes, enjoy watching talking foxes and also enjoy watching Charlotte Gainsbourg graphically torture Willem Dafoe before mutilating herself then yes this is the film for you. If you like shock factor then yes, you probably won't find another film like this and you should watch it. I guess I'm one of those film watchers who finds it difficult to see past extreme content and find meaning in them. If you are also like this then you won't like this film. Will I watch another Von Trier? I have bought Melancholia, I hear it's rather passive compared to his other films (i could be horrifically wrong), so I'm going to give that a go, then maybe I'll explore some of his other films as well. (Just highlighted this review on my tablet by accident and there is an icon which says 'cut' next to the 'copy' button and there is a small picture of some scissors next to it. After this film I will never see this icon in the same way again).
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 15 November 2017
I don't think Von Trier is saying anything misogynistic in his own voice. I thinks he is showing that She believes all human nature to be evil, but VT uses the female sexuality because of the fact that she was having sex with He when her child dies, and the breakdown of rationality and mental health is viewed primarily as being hers. Though it is his too. Perhaps it's right. If human drives that are not ethical are stronger than the drive to be ethical, I think we follow self interest, and all altruism, even the anonymous self sacrificing kind, can only be perceived for the altruist through their consciousness. It means that you only do it for something, even if it's only because the feelings that you should is more pressing than the benefit of not. Maybe it's not what VT is saying at all. She is certainly deforming the child's feet and this is pre grief and not as I see it connected specifically to female sexuality.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 1 November 2013
This isn't so much as a review but how it made me feel. It was like car crash tv for me, it repulsed me but It also fascinated me to the point I had to watch it. I could tell it was beautifully shot and the brooding darkness only added to the atmosphere. I have always thought Willem Defoe has the most amazing facial expressions in any film he makes and what a fabulous actress too. Almost having the total opposite of Defoe's facial manipulation she made it all that more chilling. As a woman I believe i am totally broadminded but I was quite shocked as to how graphic the sex scenes were but I thought it was necessary to add to the sombreness of the film. If a film plays on my mind afterwards then I consider it to have been worth the watch. I really don't know what anyone would get out of this film as a night in and a DVD for entertainment but if you like diverse films that make you think about it's topic then I would recommend that you watch this.
11 Comment| 19 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 2 April 2017
Really good film . Real sex scenes , got me blushing and hot when she had those orgasms . Fab
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE VOICEon 27 January 2010
Review of the Blu-ray version

There's little doubt that this film has divided the opinions of one and all. Some expect horror - well, it's not. Some may be curious as to its alleged 'porn' status, when it has none at all. Yet others pan it as art, albeit obsure and psychotic, for art's sake. It's not. At its heart lie the agonies of its creator in real life, past if not present, for above all this is an intimate analysis of one couple's descent into psychological breakdown, caused by the tragic death of their son.

In this film, it is the mother of the child who takes it upon herself to assume most of the guilt, and her partner - a therapist by profession anyway - gives her therapeutic support and guidance. (The director has been accused of touching upon misogynistic taboos in this regard, with his suggestion that women are evil and men are not) But her breakdown deepens and becomes physically as well as mentally destructive, and the portrayal of this is one of the film's strengths. That it should descend into such horrific images of agonising pain and mutilation is the debatable point - personally I think more could have been left to the viewer's imagination, and there should have been less in the way of sickeningly horrible (as opposed to horrific) imagery. This was the one disappointing element for me, and although I don't doubt that such acts of violence are authentic and possibly based on real events, there was no need to make those images quite so brutally in-your-face in impact; a little subtlety would have been my preference. That's because to an extent it will be these images that people will remember the film for, and some of the very intelligent examinations of depression, panic attacks and nervous breakdowns are almost glossed over as a result. For me, it's the script that works best, its worth paying careful attention to, and while its entertainment fare must admittedly be called into question, it is nevertheless poignant, moving and convincing.

This is not a horror film. I suppose it's a psychological drama but with some shocks for shock's sake, rather than art for art's sake. I'm guessing that this was something of a personal mission for the director, who if he had stayed truer to the core values would have lost a lot of money for its producers; as a result it has been 'shocked up' and given a snazzy but meaningless title so as to attract attention, more viewers, more money. That's understandable I admit - no-one wants to lose money making a film. For the viewer, if he/she can acknowledge that some of the visuals in this film are probably over-done so as to generate controversy, there is actually much to take from the film's more basic message of emotional breakdown. Much the same could be said of the symbolic imagery, which seemed to me to be, at times anyway, created only for artistic effect rather than add any meaningful worth to the story.

The circumstances surrounding the little boy's death are similar to a real and well-publicised incident that took place in New York in 1991, a tragedy that troubled me at the time and has saddened me ever since. For this reason I was particularly interested to see how the parents of the boy in this film came to terms with their grief, and it has to be said that the portayal is credible, disturbing and lays long in the memory.

I watched this in Blu-Ray and I would suggest that anyone with the choice makes the same as I did. In particular the opening scene, or prologue, which is shot in black and white, is superb from a technical perspective. The sound quality throughout is particularly impressive too, with countless sounds of the forest and the outside world coming over in detail and with a great sense of three-dimensional depth of field. What did disappoint me however was the absence of any sub-titles in English (only Danish and Italian), because although I am not hearing-impaired I often use subtitles to make sure I get every word. Set-up options are limited, with only an English audio soundtrack together with a rerun of the film with commentary by the director. On the 'Bonus' menu there are various explanations as to how the film was made, ironically some of which are in Danish with English subtitles!

A good film, then, for those with the capacity, objectivity and perhaps patience to appreciate it - but I accept that this will include far from everybody.
0Comment| 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 25 February 2014
I have never watched a film like this before and I hopefully never will. It's discussing but also exceptionally powerful. To start with the good I have to credit the originality. You have respect von Trier for having the vision and imagination to make this. Also the acting is fantastic and you having admire their courage, especially in the more gruesome scenes. I also have to add how griping it was. Despite having a very slow start (there were times when i was debating to turn it off and go to bed) The last third of the 3 beggars bit was gripping and I couldn't take my eyes of the screen(well apart from the bit when blood comes of of his penis). When it finished I just sat for a minute taking it all in, there is a lot to digest and it was all I could think about for the next couple of days. I has been years since a film had that effect on me. Oh and did I mention how visually stunning it is.

On to the bad, well the gore . Once you have watched of something you can't unwatch it. That is something I would tell someone going into Antichrist. Also It did make me feeling a bit empty and as I said it is a little dull and confusing in places.

So is Antichrist a masterpiece or one of the most discussing films in cinema history? Well it's a bit of both. Would I recommend it to a friend? Not necessary, they might think i am A bit weird for liking this. If your debating weather to watch it to see what the controversy is about, do but be prepared for the consequences!.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 6 April 2012
I guess this product doesn't really need another Review - there are plenty here already - but I "loved" this film so much I just had to say what I feel and think about it.

It should disturb people - I presume it is meant to. But only in the sense that it is crying out to people's denial of our terrible human condition here; the Evilness of planet earth. So much that is generally hidden or denied or labelled pathological, but which is actually normal. And of course to say such things is to immediately invite people's wrath, even if it is the Truth.

For me there is only one error in the movie - and that is the equation of nature with women only; and somehow men representing the mind/intellect/rationality. Because, in Truth, of course, man and the mind are as much a product of nature as everything else on the planet. There is the battle to try and rationalise an emotional event - and the portrayal of the fact that that is just not possible. Nor can it be. And ultimately the body and emotions win, as Dafoe himself finds out.

There is nothing shocking about any of the sexual scenes; nor has it got anything to do with mental illness. Nor is it a horror movie, though it is of course horrific in certain scenes. People who want to take those lines are, again, missing the more distressing point that pain, grief, sorrow, anger and "madness" are major parts of our life as humans on this planet.

The primal scream is actually shown visually, as is the cruelty of nature. The images of the half-born, dead baby deer still trapped in its mother's body for example; the almost-dead bird eaten up by other creatures and so on. This is an exploration of von Trier's idea that "nature is satan's church". And although I wouldn't use the word "satan", I can see what he is driving at and wholly agree.

At least he has dared to look at many issues and aspects of our lives straight in the eye - in a world which prefers to pretend they don't exist.

I totally recommend.
1313 Comments| 22 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 18 April 2010
Lars von Trier may be a trickster and a cad off screen, but we shouldn't overstate the extent to which that mischief bleeds into his films' narrative tapestries. He has made witty films and bleak films, and invariably intelligent films, but never a film which isn't to be taken seriously.

Antichrist is no different. Ostensibly it's ludicrous, particularly the Grand Guignol last act. But for all the gory ejaculations and rusty self-mutilation, we shouldn't overlook two fearless performances from Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg, and some truly disturbing moments. The slightly sluggish sound of an infant's cries linger long after the "Three Beggars" have come and gone. Anthony Dod Mantle's photography always seems to capture the angle of greatest discomfort, although I found the excessive use of slow-motion stole something from the inherent chaos of the woodland locations, beautifying what might have been frightening and oppressive.

I went into my second viewing of this film convinced that I'd come away the first time having watched a gruelling deconstruction of grief, laden with metaphors. The metaphors remain (and the gruel, for that matter), but this time I wonder if it's in fact a film about guilt. You know: those special Catholic guilts. Dafoe's "He" is too jealous to allow some virile young buck straight out of med school climb into his lustful wife's brain-box, so he steals her away. "She", meanwhile, feels such colossal guilt for defying Nature's will and using her body for the purpose of pleasure that only castration will suffice. And as He tries in vain to beat Despair to a pulp, before his mighty resurrection, one realises that Von Trier's message isn't just misogynistic, it's ferociously anti-feminist.

Anyway, guilt. By the end, guilt surrounds He like an army. But equally this could be a film about fear. Or trust. In fact, the main problem is that Antichrist prods so many Big Themes, with such dourness and such a lack of irony, that it ends up in the curious position of being both Von Trier's most sentimental film and yet his least moving. Even Handel can't make us cry.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)