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.

Lars von Trier's unofficially titled 'depression trilogy' of films begins with this, continues with 'Melancholia (2011)' and concludes with the mammoth and quite excellent 'Nymphomaniac (2013)'. 'Antichrist' isn't easy viewing.Rutting like animals, He (Williem Defoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) fail to notice their toddler son Nic climb onto the open window ledge and fall from the balcony to his death. Subsequently, understandably consumed by grief, the couple hike to an isolated cabin in Eden woods, far from anywhere. The husband is a therapist and feels he can manage his wife's at times uncontrollable misery.What follows is their story in four chapters, each one highlighting different levels of their 'journey'. This often involves manic sex and masturbation in a bid to escape the pain of sadness, woodland animals in throes of death and various scenes of discomfort (graphically shown), the disembodied cries of a child (possibly Nic), violence, and ultimately terror.I found this a good deal less engaging than the substantially longer 'Nymphomaniac', and approach the final film in the trilogy with an open mind. The story begins on one level of graphic imagery and despair, and remains at that level throughout. There is no real let-up or drifting away from the overwhelming intensity of it all - which becomes less intense because of its ubiquity. Defoe and Gainsbourg are excellent throughout - you really get the impression actors suffered in the creation of these roles. Director Frier has said that 'the film was finished without much enthusiasm' due to his fragile mental state at the time, and while the acting betrays no such lack of commitment, the overall effect sadly in accordance with Frier. I should add, the direction here is magical, if perhaps a little heavy-handed.

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.

I watched the film, and wondered why I was so miserable during the entire thing. Lars von Trier is not an artist - he's a sadist, and I know plenty of Danes who hate him. He is a poseur, who has embraced fascism and cruelty. It seems his sole purpose is to humiliate his actors, and really, his work is mediocre. He relies on shock value, using well known and generally talented actors - it adds to the "oh my god!" factor. He really should be walked off a cliff, but if you like watching people have their dignity removed in a manner utterly lacking in subtlety - Lars is your guy. Watch this film if you want, but honestly? I wouldn't waste my time; that's two hours I'll never get back.