|
|
|
|
Released: |
2009 |
|
|
Genre: |
DRAMA
HORROR
CONTROVERSIAL
|
|
|
Origin: |
Denmark/ Germany/ France/ Sweden/ Italy/ Poland |
|
|
Colour: |
C |
|
|
Length: |
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MIXED Reviews
|
|
|
He is certainly one of the most heroic directors in the world, uncompromising, resolute. He goes all the way and takes no prisoners. Do I believe his film "works?" Would I "recommend" it? Is it a "good" film? I believe von Trier doesn't care how I or anyone else would reply to those questions. He had the ideas and feelings, he saw into the pit, he made the film, and here it is. |
|
(Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times) |
|
Antichrist isn't exactly an enjoyable film to watch (rumours about the graphic nature of the film's violent scenes are not exaggerated) but it's one that I've had a hard time not thinking about every day since I saw it. My only real beef with the film is that it totally lacks any emotional core. What made von Trier's earlier efforts about abused women (Breaking the Waves or Dancer in the Dark) so effective was the heart wrenching way he was able to make the audience feel the tragedy of his characters. Antichrist is so cold and calculated that by the end one hardly cares about what fate will befall either character. The film is good, but it's all brain and no heart. |
|
(Katarina, They Shoot Actors Dont They?) |
|
What can we take away from it? A troubling but refreshing sense of an artist uncloaked. A violent conflict of ideas and images. A certainty that von Trier loathes therapists. A suggestion that a man can do his worst to a woman and still come across as a messiah. But any logical, unified theory? Any neat conclusions? Any satisfaction from loose ends tied and questions answered? Forget it. ts just not that sort of film. |
|
(Dave Calhoun, Time Out) |
|
A practical joke, an exquisitely malicious hoax, a superbly engineered wind- up. |
|
(Peter Bradshaw, Guardian - in an exceptionally confused review, predicated on the baseless assumption that Lars von Trier has a sense of humour) |
|
|
|
|