Watch Antichrist For Free

Waste of time

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Good acting, nicely shot movie with a lot of cruelty and graphic scenes without further explanation or real meaning.Probably if you are currently dealing with a loss of a loved one, you will appreaciate it. But not at the beginning of your morning, as this movie is not for sensitive eyes.It is about grief, the loss of a child. As I never had or wanted to have children I just could not feel that much empathy towards the characters that that alone could hold my attention. I have never checked my phone more than I did while watching this movie.I really liked both Nymphomaniac movies and was sad that they were over, so I watched this as IMDb said it is a trilogy of Trier's. Honestly, a waste of time for me. When the fow arrived that scared the s**t out of me, but otherwise I was bored the whole time. I have never seen such a nicely shot, but boring film in my life. One of the worst I have ever had.

Not much to spoil here, so I'm not even going to bother with a spoiler warning.OK then... there was a time when some people thought "let's do just anything, anything, whatever, and they will call us artists..." Those times are over, even in Danmark.Lars von Trier made some decent movies over the years (Dancer in the Dark, etc), but this guy is just sooooo over the top. It is very clear to me that he has no clue what he wants to do, or what he wants to say, and he hides it behind offensive, artsy bullcrap. Sorry dude, this might have worked in the sixties... but grow the F up, this is the 21st century....This film is a clear example of having nothing to say, having no clue how to say it, and leave it up to the audience to decide, but wait: this is wrapped into a gory, bloody, offensive, unappealing, and confusing package, without any kind of connection to the audience, to... like pretty much anything. I don't know who she is, who he is, who the kid is, why she is (apparently) insane, why they are having sex all the time, and I just don't care if they live or die. The whole thing is just distant, and does not provoke any thoughts. This is a failure on all levels. This is not art, this is just something that wants to look like art, but fails in doing so.Crap.

Pornography and Horror are two cinema genres that have an attribute in common: morbidness. The word morbid is even used to define obscenity, along with prurient interest, etc., and the awful Danish director Lars merges porn and horror in this abortion of a film.I won't waste my keystrokes on an elaborate deconstruction of its failings but rather focus on some key elements regarding its porn content. As with a few badly-made 1970s porno films, Lars' use of body doubles to substitute for the private parts of the actor & actress is ludicrously obvious. Horst Baron's big dick substitutes for the evidently puny or at least reticent member of lead Willem Dafoe in a thoroughly extraneous early shot of doggy-style humping that could have and should have been excised, had Von Trier not been intent on shock value. I've enjoyed Horst's acting in dozens of quality Euro Adult features, mainly for Marc Dorcel, and to say his momentary contribution is better than all of Willem's strained performance here is not far-fetched on my part.Basically, we have Lars worshiping Thanatos (death) rather than Eros, with a decidedly anti-erotic result: I would re-title "Antichrist" as "Anti-Erotic". In actual porn films the pornographers generally employ self-censorship in order to avoid legal issues or getting arrested (see: Max Hardcore and Lizzie Borden as the exceptions who did indeed get into trouble) so Von Trier's unholy mixture of explicit sex and grisly violence is a novelty. And a disgusting one at that.This type of pretentious swill generally gets the attention of "artsy" backers (see the film's endless list of European producers and government agencies who fell for Lars, the Emperor with No Clothes) as well as the coterie of film festivals and critics who are perhaps cinema's greatest voyeurs, craving erotic content under the guise of "art".I saw through Lars' charlatanism early on, giving his breakthrough movie "Zentropa" a well-deserved negative review at the 1991 Cannes Film Festival, perhaps its first published review (appearing in Variety newspaper). I recall seeing Peter Cowie (leading expert on Scandinavian cinema) the following day on the Croisette and he said I must have had guts to go against the tide and dissect the failings of an even then darling of the circuit and critics, one of a clique of many a so-called visionary (I prefer to call them hacks) director bamboozling the public with the aid of the gate-keepers and sycophants (Antichrist is released on DVD as part of the "Criterion Collection" making one wonder what criteria are invoked). And I still persist in calling 'em as I sees 'em.

yes my very very very fav. film on number one with Stalker, Apocalypse Now and Valhalla Rising, seen dozen times,true masterpiece with endless layers first of all the greatest tragedy that can happen, Greek style ,no shrink can help here, and then all the other levels. Von Tier's Magnum Opus. He did it.