Comments on: ANTICHRIST Review

By: babette

babette — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:32:16 +0000

Just prior to the “toolbox” scenes She smashes He’s privates with a log, yet his remarkable erection remains unchanged. Who’s fantasy is that? His or Hers?

Von Trier rarely disappoints me.

Loved your review too, Karina.

By: Amy Romano

Amy Romano — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:06:20 +0000

I’m no film expert but correct me if I’m wrong in saying that Defoe’s victory and Gainsbourg’s climactic death are entirely formulaic..I saw that coming from miles away. Doesn’t seem very unconventional to me. Further, the film would have been nothing without the value of its excellent cinematography, that was the main centerpiece more than anything else.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:10:30 +0000

Dear Karina,
This is a great review. I am looking forward toward experiencing much more of your creative output.
Thank you very much!
- Paul

By: Erin L Horsey

Erin L Horsey — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:53:46 +0000

Thanks so much for the fantastic review. You humor is well appreciated, and out of all the reviews I’ve read so far, this one is definitely the most satisfying to my person.
I think it’s crap for anyone to say whether a movie is going to be hated by women or men. I tend to take a slightly feministic views on filmmaking (although usually for how female characters are written), and this film never came across as being directly misogynistic. I mean, suuuure, I don’t particularly like to see female genital mutilation, up close and personal, but c’mon, it’s all plot, right? =P

By: anica

anica — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:54:12 +0000

beautifully shot, parts of it remind me of Bill Viola… beautiful chaptering and structure.

ive seen this 6x now and did anyone notice the names of the little statues at the beginning? well?

there is lots of meaning in this film, from what happens when a couple loses a child, the phases of depression, the use of folklore as a vehicle, and the end result of complete loss.

symbolism at its best… Lars Von Trier is a genius.

By: Review: Antichrist (2009) « Matt Hersh

Review: Antichrist (2009) « Matt Hersh — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:56:36 +0000

[...] her review, Karina Longworth said that Antichrist “rides a very thin line between legitimate horror and total [...]

By: an artaudian conceit

an artaudian conceit — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:53:58 +0000

a ruminative commentary…

kudos.

By: stcort

stcort — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:14:10 +0000

Great review…

Though flawed, I was truly affected by this film..My next mission is to figure out why. I am glad someone stepped up and challenged Hollywood and it’s formula mentality.

By: sim groos

sim groos — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:48:39 +0000

This movie it’s a fake !

By: nl

nl — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:41:42 +0000

wonderful review, thanks a lot!

By: louis kettle

louis kettle — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 21:41:03 +0000

and the only people who will say they enjoy this film are pretentious fools who think they are cool and indifferent to like such an appauling film!!

By: Kush Duncan

Kush Duncan — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:40:33 +0000

It’s almost as if Von Trier disassociates Man from Women and Nature. Two of the most striking shots reinforce this idea: Gainsbourg being engulfed by the garden and Dafoe standing unyielding and indifferent to the acorns falling on him and around him (replicating the image of the cottage).

No one seems to have touched on who or what the ‘Antichrist’ is in the film. One could argue the sound of the crying infant Gainsbourg hears in the woods is the sound of the Antichrist being born in Nature.

By: Filmfrelst #17: Antichrist | Montages.no

Filmfrelst #17: Antichrist | Montages.no — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:07:20 +0000

[...] SpoutBlog om Antichrist [...]

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:56:12 +0000

Very insightful review, thank you!

I also wanted to bring this to your attention:

http://outnow.ch/Movies/2009/Antichrist/Bilder/set.p/01

It’s the same as the image you use above, but better quality.

By: Inger

Inger — Fri, 22 May 2009 07:07:51 +0000

Thank you for very well balanced, insightfull review. I saw antichrist yesterday and allthough I have seen far more shocking and controversial films it did stir me. And I found myself compelled to find out more..
To everyone who isn’t at Cannes and want to see the unrated version : go on a weekend break to Denmark!!

By: John M

John M — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:01:09 +0000

Great analysis, as usual.
Instead of spoiling the PCS, why not just say ‘explicit sight gag’… or something.

By: David Redmon

David Redmon — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:27:26 +0000

Can’t wait to see Von Trier’s new movie (comedy?). No anticipation has excited me more since reading Bataille. Or perhaps Nietzsche’s own Antichrist. So far, I see responses from critics similar to those high moralists who despise Nietzsche’s Antichrist which is a ball of laughter in itself.

By: Harry

Harry — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:37:17 +0000

Sheesh, you and Von Trier are taking yourselves way too seriously. What a joke, and maybe a laugh or two.

By: Christophe

Christophe — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:18:59 +0000

It’s one of two shots that many agree will need to be cut for the film to be released by an MPAA signatory [...]

I assume that what is meant here is not “… to be released by an MPAA signatory” but “released with an R rating from the MPAA.” Explicit penetration is no bar to releasing the movie with an NC-17.

By: daveed

daveed — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:51:20 +0000

Of course Von Trier knows what he’s doing. He’s the closet Catholic reprobate who uses film play the voyeur to his twisted fantasies.

He reminds me of those serial rapists who begs to be castrated — only after they’re caught.

By: Tony Comstock

Tony Comstock — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:39:24 +0000

“[R]ight in the middle there’s a single, rather lengthy cutaway to a giant hard-on penetrating a vagina. It’s one of two shots that many agree will need to be cut for the film to be released by an MPAA signatory.”

???

My film “Marie and Jack: A Hardcore Love Story” received an NC-17. What makes you think the MPAA would refuse to rate Antichirst?

By: ANTICHRIST (on cowardice) « The 401st Blow :: Thoughts On Media

ANTICHRIST (on cowardice) « The 401st Blow :: Thoughts On Media — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:40:10 +0000

[...] were left thoroughly disappointed. Karina Longworth from Spout wrote a review of the film and I posted a response, which I place [...]

By: Nictate

Nictate — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:26:24 +0000

Very nicely done. I think Lars would be pleased.

By: Noah Harlan

Noah Harlan — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:23:31 +0000

He was ready to fight a war but then ducked out the back entrance after throwing the first stone. His not staying to the end of the film was a bit childish and seemed like an act of cowardice.

As for the film, I don’t really object to much of what you wrote and the images are exceptional (ironically Von Trier shares cinematographer with the most banal of last year’s films: SLUMDOG). However, I think you gave him a complete pass on a script that seemed written by an first-year film student getting over his first break-up. It juvenile in the extreme, lacking any subtlety (”Chaos Reigns” anyone?) and frankly gave Dafoe and Gainsbourg so little to work with that they were left gesticulating wildly to make up for the deficit.

I think the film is nowhere as bad as its detractors say and nowhere as good as its proponents. In the end it is the worst of all, it is at best mediocre. To hide this mediocrity, Von Trier compels himself to carry on like a child, incapable of engaging in intelligent discussion of his work and cowardly running from the public response. He is disingenuous in his claim that he doesn’t make films for an audience. When I watched ANTICHRIST I felt that I was watching a film that was made to do nothing other than face the audience.

Too bad Von Trier can’t.

By: Pierre

Pierre — Wed, 20 May 2009 14:20:01 +0000

But really, if someone isn’t making something excitingly provocative then what are we supposed to look forward to? Television? No thankyou.