You better go see that movie when it's out. It was in Polish teathers last spring and it was, kinda like, outrageous. I think it's a good movie, most people claim that it's the worst movie ever, so it's kinda extreme.

Gross! But I guess that's what they're going for. I could never sit through this movie. I can't be that detached. (No pun intended. Not at all.)

Um, I've heard a lot of things about this movie, but one thing I haven't heard is that it is Scary. Isn't this a horror movie and shouldn't horror films be scary? What I heard about this film is more disgusting than scary.

@beautifulm: I guess it depends upon what horrifies you.

@Patricia: Is this film only going for the shock aspect what with their mutilating genitalia and such? Cause I'm in the same boat as you; it's sick! But Brad should review this movie just so we know he's being completely impartial to all genres…

its a brilliant poster. i hope they use it. the film itself is far from being the worst film ever made.
i liked it a lot. it's jarring and gut wrenching. but fun in the most sadistic way imaginable.
also the performances are excellent.
however i am a fan of von trier and his earlier works.

@Anonymous' Friend: You know Brad is impartial. He'll reveiw this film.

I read an interview with William Dafoe this morning. He has FOUR films at TIFF. Anyway, he said this film is a lot more than the hype. I guess it would have to be or who would go to see it? But I'm still staying away. I'm too impressionable.

@Patricia: Ya we'll see if Dafoe is hyping the movie himself. His career sort of fell apart after Spider-man so he's most likely clutching at straws here. By the sound of it, there's no way this is getting rated anything other than NC-17. And the only NC-17 movie I've seen (other than peeks of "Showgirls" when I was a kid), was "Lust, Caution" which was great. So I've gotta be pretty convinced this movie's worth seeing and not just experimental or shock-intent trash on the screen.

Whaddya say, Brad? You reviewing this?

@Anonymous' Friend: I'll review it once they screen it. Unfortunately there hasn't been a Seattle screening yet, but I am waiting anxiously.

Damn, what a great poster! You realize that when those scissors snap shut (likely over some body part), that Gainsborough & Dafoe will be kissing. Creepy as all fucking hell!

Please, let this have a release wide enough for me to see it!

I didn't like this movie. But the poster is appropriate.

The poster's obviously taking the exploitation route by highlighting what amounts to a few seconds out of the entire movie and doing the old 'Do you dare to see it?' approach that will sell more tickets than if it was being promoted as a gloomy two-character drama (which it is).

Thank you for the linkage. It is a doozy of a poster, isn't it? And, yes, JM got the idea entirely. The movie is actually quite good and far from being only a sadistic trip through Von Trier's mind.

@Glenn: I feel like I should reply to the blogger you linked to, especially since it is the blog Brad refers to as his link to the poster. However….

von Trier unfairly labeled a misogynist? I don't think even he would support that claim. Here's Movieline's statement from Cannes: "Gainsbourg, musing on her abandoned thesis, makes statements blaming women for all the ills of society and calling the sex downright evil."

Hey, if you want to tout the production elements of this film, I hear it's well done. But don't pretend the overall theme is anything other than what it is. As I frequently do, I will rely upon Roger Ebert to speak here: "… it's important to note that 'Antichrist' is not a bad film. It is a powerfully-made film that contains material many audiences will find repulsive or unbearable. The performances by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are heroic and fearless. Von Trier's visual command is striking. The use of music is evocative; no score, but operatic and liturgical arias. And if you can think beyond what he shows to what he implies, its depth are frightening."

Now I have a question for this film's supporters. If the main character had been a gay person who made statements blaming gays for all the ills of society and calling them downright evil, or a Jew doing the same, or a Muslim, or pick any vulnerable minority, what would you feelings be? There are places all over the world where to be born female is to be put in jeopardy of not getting a proper education, to freely make choices, of even being allowed to live…and even, yes, of being sexually mutilated in just the way the main female character disfigures herself.

OK, I'm off my soap box. But please, don't insult me by saying von Trier is not misogynistic. If you like the film, fine. But like it for what it is. Don't try to blow smoke.

@Patricia: The largest problem I have with your argument is the same problem I have with any argument of its sort. You ask a bunch of "What if..?" questions, but you can't judge a film based on "what ifs" you have to base it on what is.

Also, I think you are getting rather worked up for a film you haven't seen yet, especially to go as far as to say "like it for what it is," considering what it is is something you haven't seen.

@Patricia: I am the blogger that Brad originally linked to and I am the blogger who wrote the review that I linked to a few replies up. I'm the same person. To direct a comment at the person whose blog I linked to is to direct a comment at me.

Aaanyway, Patricia, I don't claim that Gainsbourg's character isn't a self-loather, but LARS VON TRIER is one of only a few directors in the world writing AND directing these major roles for female actors. Can you picture Scorsese creating Selma from "Dancer in the Dark" and having the guts to cast Bjork? Can you imagine Michael Mann producing a character like Grace from "Dogville" and putting her in one of his movies? Or Emily Watson in "Breaking the Waves" or Charlotte Gainsbourg in "Antichrist" or so on. I doubt it. I find someone like Mann much more misogynistic than Von Trier. I mean, what, he puts maybe one female character in all of his movies. At least Von Trier is creating interesting, polaristing, perplexing, flawed, genuine human characters for some of the best actresses in the world (Kidman, Watson, Gainsbourg).

That is not misogyny to me.

I can't say what my reaction would be if the film were about gay people, but much like Gainsbourg in "Antichrist" you could say that Heath Ledger's character in "Brokeback Mountain" is a self-loathing gay man who blames his homosexuality for everything bad that's happened to him.

The movie isn't about a woman blaming women for all the ills in the world, it is about a woman who blames herself. Besides, wasn't Von Trier targeted as misogynistic when he attached that giant metal wheel to Nicole Kidman's neck in "Dogville". Well, anyone whose seen "Antichrist" (which you have not, Patricia) can attest to the fact that the tables get turned and yet he's being called misogynistic now because the female is the villain, not the victim?

Hypocrisy (and hyperbole) run mad, I tells ya!

Oh and relying on a critic to form your own opinion is, always has been and always will be, a silly thing to do. Form your own opinions and you'll be much better off than if you just follow sheep.

@Brad Brevet: @Glenn: If I'm going to get the beat down, like I have here, I'd rather it be from articulate, well meaning people like you two.

No, I haven't seen the film. And seeing as it took me about 20 hours to watch "Schindler's List" many years ago because I had to keep stopping and then starting the tape (pre DVD days) so that I could breathe, I think there is VERY little chance I will. Graphic violence is very difficult for me. I don't seem to have the ability that many people have of removing myself from what is happening on the screen and just experiencing it as entertainment. Some films just send warning signals to me that it would be impossible for me to recover from a viewing. Almost all of those contain graphic violence against women. Self inflicted violence also applies.

Both of you and many others don't have a problem with the mutilation. And you see the female lead as self hating not gender hating. Others disagree. OK.

I apologize for going off on a film I haven't yet seen. Both of you are right that it is unfair and probably inaccurate.

@Glenn: Patricia's initial skepticism over who wrote/posted what blog/comment is justified since this is the Internet and anything could be typed into a Name text box.

The poster strikes me as art and I'm a firm believer that art, of any format, should be consumed and critiqued but never censored. I like the poster and am more interested in the film because of it (as odd as that may sound).

@Patricia: I would simply add that even if Antichrist or any other Lars work is misogynistic, that does not mean von Trier is himself a misogynist. Jeff Lindsay, for example, tells stories about serial killers, that doesn't make him a serial killer. Brad writes about movies, I don't think that make's him a movie :)

@GregM: Yes and Clint Eastwood has been struggling with Catholicism in his last few films but that doesn't make him a Catholic. But certainly we can know something about a person by the stories he or she chooses to explore…much less write and direct. Brad writes about movies so I can assume he is passionate about films and film making. I like to write commentary because I enjoy intelligent debate. I don't know much about Jeff Lindsay, but I assume he enjoys depicting the sometimes drastic contrast between who we are and who we present ourselves to be in his show, "Dexter."

I want to make it clear that I'm not in any way standing up for a sanitized world view. We are all an inexhaustible supply of complex stories including hardships, loss, cruelty, exploitation, and self hatred as well as love, comfort, compassion and redemption. Believe me, I hate those films who only want to show the latter in an exaggeratedly sentimentally sloppy way as I do violence for violence sake films.

@Glenn: I agree fully with your response. Von Trier is not misogynistic. He writes realistic, flawed female characters, which nearly everyone else seems to be scared of doing nowadays. The majority of his films revolve around females, and none of them seem exaggerated or stereotypical. He's one of the only filmmakers out there who actually has the balls (no pun intended) to create disturbing, vividly original works of art with challenging, multi-layered characters. Von Trier is not a misogynist for writing a complex, self-loathing female character who blames herself for what happened. She is a ficitional character. She hates herself. That does not mean that Von Trier hates women, and to assume so is absurd. I honestly do not even understand how you could possibly think that Von Trier is a misogynist. If he and his films were so horrible and anti-female, do you think Nicole Kidman, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Emily Watson, Bjork, and other internationally renowned actresses would have worked with him?

Were Dafoe's character the villain, I believe our mutual "friend" Patricia would support Von Trier for 'having the courage to show the horrors of domestic violence'. To that, I say — it's the real world, Patty. Things like this actually happen. Women are capable of using violence against men. There is no point in turning your head from it and trying to deny its existence. People need to realize that things like this are happening. If anything, maybe Antichrist will drive someone to examine their own inner-self and stop before they do something terrible like Gainsbourg's character in the film. It could also potentially raise awareness of domestic violence, which, though I am sure Patricia would deny this, is very often the female abusing the male. Patricia seems to be a staunch neo-feminist who would like to pretend that those things don't exist, and that the male is always to blame in every situation.

Great write-up, Glenn, by the way. I think you might have a new fan. :)

@Patricia: Jeff Lindsay is not the creator of the show "Dexter". He writes the novels upon which the show is based. However, you are correct to assume that the difference between self-image and reality is a large theme in the Dexter universe.

Also, since I forgot to say this in my previous post, please refrain from judging something you have not seen. If you do not watch Antichrist, then you really have absolutely no place judging or condemning it. I have not seen it yet either, but I will be there as soon as my art house gets it.

@Matt: I have apologized to Brad and Glenn who certainly deserve it. But, Matt, don't push me too far. If we aren't to judge films from the critique that is printed about them than what is the point of the critique? I must have read over 25 different reviews, reactions, and personal reflections from as many people who have seen the film, all intelligent respected film criitcs. I'm not basing my assessment of the film on a clip or a poster.

But if all this controversy gets your seat in the theatre when it's released, then its job has been done. It has driven me away.

@Jesus Christ, Superstar: Oh, I know. The number of "Anonymous" trollers is ridiculous. I was just clarifying.

@Glenn: I pretty much just assume that anyone named 'Anonymous' is a troll. I'm typically right in that assumption.

@Patricia: I'm sorry. I was in a really bad mood when I posted that. I still think it's best not to judge something you haven't seen, but I can't stop you from that, and you have the right to do so.

I don't want to see the film because of the controversy, though. I want to see it because it looks excellent, in my opinion. I hope I am not going to be disappointed.

By the way, who's the woman in the picture?

@Matt: Yes, we're all family here. We can fuss and fight but we still have to be able to sit down together at Thanksgiving.

That's the incomparable Bette Davis in 1934 for "Of Human Bondage." I have been a loyal fan since I was about 10 years old. (And yes, that was many, many decades after 1934.)

To be honest, on second thought I'm not so sure I even want to see Antichrist myself. Certainly not a moral objection. I just really don't think I can handle the gore. Maybe I could see the cut (no pun intended … okay, pun intended) version.

Of course, this could be because I'm particularly nauseated right now due to the flu. Anything sounds disgusting right now.