It felt as though there would be one, which in return made me feel dissapointed that I propably missed something important in the film and left me confused.
I was waiting for the point in the movie where it started to make sense to me.
Virtually everything stated in this review is factually inaccurate. Embarrassing lack of understanding and research. It's one thing to have ignorant opinions as an audience members, it's an entirely another to pass one's self off as a professional.
kermod is the smartest critic . most crittics miss the point of films . or win a film is artsy they say its great or by an artsy filaker they say yeag to everthing mark is smart in that respect
I found it chilling and frightening, so as a horror it did its job. It was also disturbing content-wise and visually made an impression, lots of scenes are memorable. SPOILERS: The part about the kid and the child abuse with his feet genuinely disturbed me greatly. I've never been so disturbed by a movie like that, I felt empty after watching it, and angry, and I couldn't get the imagery out of my head, I wished I hadn't watched it. I suppose that's partly the point of the movie. Succeeded.
Ugh, that clip sucked. The dialouge was contrived, and in the background it sounded like somebody was playing ping-pong on a piece of sheet metal. But I guess it can't be any worse than Bjork singing.
@18decman He also said he's making a 4 hour porno with Kirsten Dunst. Do you think he was serious then or was he just being serious with the nazi comments.
@00woolley i' m not english i better understand written words then speech. your theory about plagiarism is misplaced.. maybe is it your way? i'm not a critician, i'm an amateur.
There were a lot of interesting things going on in the film. A lot of the scenamatography was really well done. But before seeing this film I had never felt literally physically ill (like my head was spinning and if I didn`t stop, close my eyes, and lay down I would have thrown up) until I saw this film.
That was only at the end though and I pleasantly watched everything leading up till then. But yeah it was an experience, all beit a less than comfortable one.
Considering I know the BBFC guidelines, I'm very surprised they passed it uncut. There are rules against showing erect penises, ejaculation (let alone blood ejaculation), and graphic shots of female genitals - and we get all of that. I can only assume that they're were passed since they're in such an unerotic context.
Which is kind of fucked up in a way - you're not allowed to show it in a normal, arousing manner, but you are in a violent, twisted manner. Bit weird!
Von Trier has borrowed so widely from various horror genres that it just appears as an amusing caricature. The boy's fall from the window is done in an oddly gentle fashion - removing the emotional impact from this event.
Cinematography is stunning, but the main body of the movie seems oddly bereft of the usual musical cues, leaving it very difficult to empathise with the characters.
Over all, quite pretty in parts but with silly violence, very flawed.
I'd love it if they showed one of the nastier clips in the film... it's an important film, but it's got some of the most extreme and shocking images I've ever seen. See it, but be sure to be in a stable fram of mind when you do.
About William Defoe: " I've seen it (the film) and I understand it; he was just in it, he hasn't seen it" Even given the intended lightheartedness of this remark, this shows the arrogant disdain this media-hungry apology for a critic harbours for actors/performers - in fact anyone who isn't either an auteur or a theorist. Very reminiscent of Pauline Kael: literate (after a fashion) but a major snob and unaware of what really happens in front of a camera unless it can be psychobabbled.
he talks about metaphor then he says that breaking the waves is misogynistic? idiot. that movie is about misogyny. a woman that is a victim of male pathology.
If Kermode truly believes that one should 'trust the tale, not the teller', then why does he feel the need to hold reservations about the sincerity of the film in view of his own opinions about Von Trier?
I can't believe this is on sky tv uncut, and now I have seen it I can say that antichrist is rubbish, boring with unnecessary graphic scenes(which i'm nomally for). its cinematography is really nice, but the porno bits and the womans over the top mental breakdown ruined the film, maybe this film could be good with a bit of editing
"trust the tale not the teller. just because you're in a film doesn't mean you understand it" lol that's so true I'm willing to bet johnny depp doesn't have a clue what the pirates films are even about
The idea that Pirates of the Caribbean is 'about stuff', is as hilarious as trying to extract the sociopolitical themes from a Domino's Pizza menu. On Stranger Tides is the harrowing story of a film studio who set a release date for the fourth product in their franchise, back when they made $960,000,000 in 2007, with the intention of going to market in the summer sale of 2011, requiring a semi-shootable script before Q1 of 2010, with enough footage in the can for a teaser in Q4.
Well I'm no soap expert, but it's generally understood that the defining attribute of the Ian Beale character, is that he's a twat and no one likes him. If he's been through some amazing transformation this decade into a war, cuddly, loveable figure who's the Square's best friend, then I apologise. But given that the whole point of a soap opera is that things happen but nothing really changes, since they have to produce many hours of television each week, that seems highly unusual.
So you guys need some old dude that looks like a arrogant preacher, to deside your oppinion and point of view of this film. How sad. Art is to be having your own oppinion of. No one can say 100% what this film is about, you have to guess for yourself.
I totally disagree. This film is the emperor's new clothes. Quite simply it's the worst film I've ever seen. It's so full of itself and it's made quite obviously by a pretentious idiot. I've wasted two hours of my life on it and that's all I'll waste. Mark Kermode is full of it.
why was this titled "antichrist"? it should have been called SIN or sodom and gomorah. anti-christ is suppose to be a political-religious leader thats satanic
the antichrist is Yahweh Ben Yahweh his real name (Hulon Mitchell, Jr.) leader of the so-called black hebrew israelites in america He originally tried to base his teachings on twisting Christian doctrine Yahweh and his followers are referred to as a “killer cult,” Those who followed Yahweh Ben Yahweh viewed him as the Messiah you can look up black hebrew israelites, his followers preaching in the streets saying america will be detroyed calling the white men the devil and much more i have videos
Kermode often talks about Lars von Trier's films, particulary about how much he hates Breaking the Waves and The Idiots, But I've never heard him talk about Dancer In The Dark. Does anyone know whether he liked that film or not?
Kermode is very likable but I disagree with nearly everything he says about films. The man thinks The Exorcist is the greatest film ever made, for christsake. And The Idiots is Von Trier's best film!
I do agree that Antichrist and Posession are very similar though. Good point, Mr Kermode.
I get really irked by Kermode. I think he's an incredibly pretentious idiot. BUT.... I really admire his confidence to say whatever he thinks no matter what the reaction. Mayo laughed when Kermode said he understood the film better than the actor who appeared in it, and I admire that Kermode held his ground. I dislike horror, would have no problem if half of it was banned, and love the slapstick "sexist" comedies he hates, but he's interesting, so I still listen to him.
Not Trier at his best (Dancer in the Dark), but the cinematography, acting and visual FX was a real treat. Other than that, the story failed to grab me. When you stop caring about what happens to these characters something's wrong. Shocking, yes. Used in the right way? I don't care. That's just it. Hard core Lars fans will of course lap it up (and then eagerly give a five star review to von Triers Melancholia before they've even seen it). We're funny that way.
If Kermode truly believes that one should 'trust the tale, not the teller', then why does he feel the need to hold reservations about the sincerity of the film in view of his own opinions about Von Trier?
One maddening thing about this movie is the people like this reviewer who are determined to set up the straw man that people only have a negative reaction to this movie BECAUSE it's "shocking" (violent, sexual, etc.) Easy, pretentious way to dismiss criticism.
While this film may have fine acting and cinematography, it is nevertheless a poorly conceived piece of audience torture. The "art" of the movie does not counterbalance the crappy writing.
It's a challenging film and gruelling to watch, if you don't know it is why are you watching it. And he has a point about shocking films, it's not simply an "easy and pretentious way to dismiss criticism." Shocking films are going to disgust and shock, as they are intended, and therefore garner negative reactions, it does not affect whether or not it is a good film.
You're right that people often set up a straw man with "obscene and shocking" movies, but I don't see how you can say that Kermode is doing that in this review. When he's discussing The Idiots at 7.04, for instance, he states that all of the fuss about it being shocking was irrelevant, he just thought it was a poorly made film. Frankly I think you're the only one arguing against a straw man here.
Having seen Antichrist recently, I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with Kermode. I think it's von Trier's best work by a long shot. I still can't believe that Dafoe doesn't think it's about misogyny, but hey, to each his own.
I watched it last night and I thought overall it was great. The ending though... I agree with Kermode that it's essentially a joke. To take it literally it becomes the most mysoganistic think I've ever seen. And Lars Von Trier 'hates women' right? He's laughing at them all.
Well I've now seen the film and I can safely say that all the hype about it being utterly depraved, sick and disgusting is completely unfounded. Yes it has some uncomfortable scenes that are both irksome and wince inducing but no way should this film be censored or even considered to be banned as those so called controversial scenes are important and integral to the story and themes of the film.
buddy, so is it really disturbing as a lot of people claimed to be? i wanted to watch this movie, but i'm just too pansy too watch disturbing movies...
Depends on what you mean by disturbing. If you're put off watching the film because you've been told that it's a gross out gorefest horror film then you've been misled. It's more psychological in it's interrpretation of horrofic themes, there is very little in the way of gore or bloodshed apart from one or two scenes which in themselves are not particularly gory but do make the viewer wince.On the whole it's a film about female psychosexuality....if that helps, lol.
@petertyson2 It's extremely graphic though, I found it disturbing, but then you're right that what you see works with the themes of the film. Certain parts were shocking, but that's the point. It's a film I don't think I'll ever forget.
Me too. I thought it was about to be an important film about the horror genre, deconstructing it's obsession with the female ideal, but in the end it becomes about Lars Von Trier laughing at his critics intentionally disappearing up his own pretentious mysoganistic arse. It's very clever Mr Trier but what about the ending we deserve?
no... because the passion of the christ was an argument in blood lust and I found it despicable. In Antichrist the violence is EXTREME, but justified in the context of the themes it's trying to explore. They are bad and they'll make you squirm but they come quick like a punch and fades. I was more distraught simply by watching a person in complete despair. To put the extremity of the violence in context Irreversable stays with the agony much much longer.
He says man and woman because the characters in the film are nameless, simply they are referred to as He and She a slight nod to the biblical Adam and Eve story.
It's completely true what Kermode says about the hysteria and fuss that the film has kicked up, critics and journos saying that it's disgusting and depraved without actually seeing it makes them all part of what the director is trying to create in the first place. How can anyone have anykind of judgement on something that they have yet to witness?...It's ridiculous.
Because he's evidently more concerned with the film-maker rather than the film. As he said, he has a problem with Lars von Trier and has made up his mind that he's a misogynist long before ever seeing this film, so, off he goes on his anti-LvT screed. His opinion and his right, certainly, but it reveals more about Kermode's own world view and politics than it does about this film itself.
Still, as I said in my earlier post, I never ever miss a Kermode review and genuinely enjoy his work.
Yes but it says something that he can still hail Antichrist as Von Trier's best work despite what he thinks of him personally or his other films. He also really liked Dogville and Manderlay so he's more open-minded about the man than it seems. Certainly more open-minded than the columnist who trashed Antichrist without having seen it.
Kermode's only on his whole 'misogynist' trip because he's pussy-whipped by his feminist uni professor wife - see his reviews for any recent comedy featuring breasts, crude humour and sexual content also. You can't take anything seriously from this 50's throwback plonker!
No, it's entirely because of what I mentioned, which is well known to anyone who is familiar to Kermode, and indeed is a negative point to even his most rabid devotees. Face it, Kermode is held up as the eptiome of 'telling it like it is' by his fanbase, but he is just as biased, prejudiced and a sell-out as any other reviewer - and in this case, it's not even really his own opinions!!
Well yeah, it's a matter of opinion. Of course he's biased. Everyone is biased about films. Look, I'd be the first to admit that I've disagreed with Kermode several times, but it's clear that he knows film and he's a very entertaining broadcaster. Are his views on misogyny influenced by his wife? Perhaps, but you know what? When I see these obnoxious comedies or horror films that treat women as nothing but objects, I really can't see what's so off-base about his views.
You may not be a million miles away with regard to his wife however. If you listen to the show, the way in which he squirms every time Simon refers to her as "Mrs Kermode" is priceless!
@ec123456789able Not in at least 20 years. He showed a pic of his pass the first time he went to the Cannes festival and the only difference was his hair was darker.
more of a psycholical horror like the shining, went to see it tonight, thought it was great direction - reminded me of tarkovsky, which was validated by a line at the end saying it was in honour of tarkovsky. very hard to watch in places, in the way that funny games is for instance. I liked the lyncesque bits best e.g. the talking fox. film is essentially about the psychology of a complex family relationship, grief and mysogeny - I think trier does go too far with the mysogenist theme at the end
It's a solid enough review. I'm going to check it out.
One thing though, Mark seems adamant that Von Trier is a trickster and his film is mysoginistic (spelling?) in this review, but when Dafoe shot him down about that in the last interview, Mark went quiet on it. No point arguing it now.
I just travelled 120 miles to see this,An incredible film,dont listen to the lazy hacks that decribe this a vile,its one of the most powerful pieces of cinema you could ever hope to see.
I really want to see Antichrist but no cinemas in my area are showing it which is annoying. Gonna have to see if I can find it online anywhere or just wait several months for the DVD.
Normally I have no patience for Lars von Trier but I think I have to see Antichrist now. In America, they're cutting the genital mutilation, and for once, I'm relieved.
If there's a message in the movie I didnt get it.
It felt as though there would be one, which in return made me feel dissapointed that I propably missed something important in the film and left me confused.
I was waiting for the point in the movie where it started to make sense to me.
I guess this is just not my type of movie.
CloneWarrior001 6 days ago
Antichrist is Lars von Trier's best..
cerenimoon 1 week ago
@matyb To what exactly are you referring?
hanshotfirst1138 1 week ago
People who are close-minded will never get Antichrist
1987Bateman 1 month ago
Virtually everything stated in this review is factually inaccurate. Embarrassing lack of understanding and research. It's one thing to have ignorant opinions as an audience members, it's an entirely another to pass one's self off as a professional.
matyb 2 months ago
Just watched it. 'He's playful and a prankster.'You might also have added 'and a total fraud'.
Guedingen 2 months ago
kermod is the smartest critic . most crittics miss the point of films . or win a film is artsy they say its great or by an artsy filaker they say yeag to everthing mark is smart in that respect
dornravlin 4 months ago
I love Antichrist. I think Charlotte Gainsbourg was at her best as was Wihlem Defoe. Lars von Trier is a genius!
Luvie1980 4 months ago 2
I found the film boring as F***.
paintballing489 4 months ago
I found it chilling and frightening, so as a horror it did its job. It was also disturbing content-wise and visually made an impression, lots of scenes are memorable. SPOILERS: The part about the kid and the child abuse with his feet genuinely disturbed me greatly. I've never been so disturbed by a movie like that, I felt empty after watching it, and angry, and I couldn't get the imagery out of my head, I wished I hadn't watched it. I suppose that's partly the point of the movie. Succeeded.
ChristopherDone 5 months ago
this film is art.
chanceie12 5 months ago 2
Ugh, that clip sucked. The dialouge was contrived, and in the background it sounded like somebody was playing ping-pong on a piece of sheet metal. But I guess it can't be any worse than Bjork singing.
marlboroman1985 7 months ago
It was okay to watch but the end I couldnt watch xD
xLinkinPark1994x 8 months ago
Artfully-worked in reference to Possesion Mark.
allaboutdmagic 9 months ago
Lars is a nazi
18decman 9 months ago
@18decman He also said he's making a 4 hour porno with Kirsten Dunst. Do you think he was serious then or was he just being serious with the nazi comments.
firekind1980 9 months ago
@18decman then so are you.
ABEJOHNDERDANSER 8 months ago
@18decman
u been trolld by Lars
Di0genesus 7 months ago 2
@18decman
No. But he is a troll.
And he just succeeded.
guatahala 1 month ago
anybody knows where i can find this review written?
egiletti 11 months ago
@egiletti If you must plagiarize your dissertation then just type it as you listen. Asking for help in cheating your paper? Tut tut, schoolboy error.
00woolley 11 months ago
@00woolley no way.. the problem is that i can't understand
egiletti 11 months ago
@egiletti How come? You're typing in English and he's speaking English?
00woolley 11 months ago
@00woolley hahaha... you are right, but i'm not english. so it's much more easier to me to read and write than to listen to a speech
egiletti 11 months ago
@00woolley i' m not english i better understand written words then speech. your theory about plagiarism is misplaced.. maybe is it your way? i'm not a critician, i'm an amateur.
egiletti 9 months ago
@egiletti What's a critician?
00woolley 9 months ago
There were a lot of interesting things going on in the film. A lot of the scenamatography was really well done. But before seeing this film I had never felt literally physically ill (like my head was spinning and if I didn`t stop, close my eyes, and lay down I would have thrown up) until I saw this film.
That was only at the end though and I pleasantly watched everything leading up till then. But yeah it was an experience, all beit a less than comfortable one.
okamichamploo 11 months ago
Considering I know the BBFC guidelines, I'm very surprised they passed it uncut. There are rules against showing erect penises, ejaculation (let alone blood ejaculation), and graphic shots of female genitals - and we get all of that. I can only assume that they're were passed since they're in such an unerotic context.
Which is kind of fucked up in a way - you're not allowed to show it in a normal, arousing manner, but you are in a violent, twisted manner. Bit weird!
Great film though.
MrVinushka 1 year ago
So brilliant.
frozenghost233 1 year ago
The blokes a berk
DanielBowden1975 1 year ago
At least a couple of reviews for this film have said that it's really pretentious. Are they right?
Markunator 1 year ago
@Markunator Defintley thats about the only thing you cannot argue (imo, lol).
frmonth2 1 year ago
@AndreasVar Did you just use the word "idiot" as an adjective? You are completely idiot.
wcjones451 1 year ago 5
It's not a great film.
Von Trier has borrowed so widely from various horror genres that it just appears as an amusing caricature. The boy's fall from the window is done in an oddly gentle fashion - removing the emotional impact from this event.
Cinematography is stunning, but the main body of the movie seems oddly bereft of the usual musical cues, leaving it very difficult to empathise with the characters.
Over all, quite pretty in parts but with silly violence, very flawed.
albedo0point39 1 year ago
I'd love it if they showed one of the nastier clips in the film... it's an important film, but it's got some of the most extreme and shocking images I've ever seen. See it, but be sure to be in a stable fram of mind when you do.
SethHesio 1 year ago
think its great a little man with red hair and glasses can stir up the world. :)
Alorrana 1 year ago
About William Defoe: " I've seen it (the film) and I understand it; he was just in it, he hasn't seen it" Even given the intended lightheartedness of this remark, this shows the arrogant disdain this media-hungry apology for a critic harbours for actors/performers - in fact anyone who isn't either an auteur or a theorist. Very reminiscent of Pauline Kael: literate (after a fashion) but a major snob and unaware of what really happens in front of a camera unless it can be psychobabbled.
vivienmerchant 1 year ago
he talks about metaphor then he says that breaking the waves is misogynistic? idiot. that movie is about misogyny. a woman that is a victim of male pathology.
robaquarian 1 year ago
Brilliant review! He put my thoughts into words here.
zalkin83 1 year ago
4.06 wow, he is so wrong xD
Chopofiev 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Kermode truly believes that one should 'trust the tale, not the teller', then why does he feel the need to hold reservations about the sincerity of the film in view of his own opinions about Von Trier?
heyheyjack 1 year ago
Comment removed
heyheyjack 1 year ago
go f*ck yourself kermode -
smokethedirt 1 year ago
I can't believe this is on sky tv uncut, and now I have seen it I can say that antichrist is rubbish, boring with unnecessary graphic scenes(which i'm nomally for). its cinematography is really nice, but the porno bits and the womans over the top mental breakdown ruined the film, maybe this film could be good with a bit of editing
DumbfoundAdog 1 year ago
"trust the tale not the teller. just because you're in a film doesn't mean you understand it" lol that's so true I'm willing to bet johnny depp doesn't have a clue what the pirates films are even about
TheEvilelvis89 1 year ago
@TheEvilelvis89
The idea that Pirates of the Caribbean is 'about stuff', is as hilarious as trying to extract the sociopolitical themes from a Domino's Pizza menu. On Stranger Tides is the harrowing story of a film studio who set a release date for the fourth product in their franchise, back when they made $960,000,000 in 2007, with the intention of going to market in the summer sale of 2011, requiring a semi-shootable script before Q1 of 2010, with enough footage in the can for a teaser in Q4.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa How would Ian Beale view thy opinion?
dowling1981 1 year ago
@dowling1981
What, the EastEnders guy? Are you saying I'm a twat like he is? I mean, I am a twat but in a completely different way to Ian Beale.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa I did not intend for you to cuss Ian Beale. Why don't you like him?
dowling1981 1 year ago
@dowling1981
Well I'm no soap expert, but it's generally understood that the defining attribute of the Ian Beale character, is that he's a twat and no one likes him. If he's been through some amazing transformation this decade into a war, cuddly, loveable figure who's the Square's best friend, then I apologise. But given that the whole point of a soap opera is that things happen but nothing really changes, since they have to produce many hours of television each week, that seems highly unusual.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa I see, and is it true that Ian Beale is planning to release an album of Enya covers in time for Spring?
dowling1981 11 months ago
So you guys need some old dude that looks like a arrogant preacher, to deside your oppinion and point of view of this film. How sad. Art is to be having your own oppinion of. No one can say 100% what this film is about, you have to guess for yourself.
Zejex15 1 year ago
I totally disagree. This film is the emperor's new clothes. Quite simply it's the worst film I've ever seen. It's so full of itself and it's made quite obviously by a pretentious idiot. I've wasted two hours of my life on it and that's all I'll waste. Mark Kermode is full of it.
amcgowan1970 1 year ago
why was this titled "antichrist"? it should have been called SIN or sodom and gomorah. anti-christ is suppose to be a political-religious leader thats satanic
athrunmanly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the antichrist is Yahweh Ben Yahweh his real name (Hulon Mitchell, Jr.) leader of the so-called black hebrew israelites in america He originally tried to base his teachings on twisting Christian doctrine Yahweh and his followers are referred to as a “killer cult,” Those who followed Yahweh Ben Yahweh viewed him as the Messiah you can look up black hebrew israelites, his followers preaching in the streets saying america will be detroyed calling the white men the devil and much more i have videos
CrazyFavVideos 1 year ago
Kermode often talks about Lars von Trier's films, particulary about how much he hates Breaking the Waves and The Idiots, But I've never heard him talk about Dancer In The Dark. Does anyone know whether he liked that film or not?
Experimentalfilms123 1 year ago 5
Antichrist is merely porn!
0509112x 1 year ago
Kermode is very likable but I disagree with nearly everything he says about films. The man thinks The Exorcist is the greatest film ever made, for christsake. And The Idiots is Von Trier's best film!
I do agree that Antichrist and Posession are very similar though. Good point, Mr Kermode.
avastyer 1 year ago
Who cares about how disturbing those scenes were...?
The film should be banned for how BORING it was.
jamesthemod 1 year ago
@jamesthemod
Finally! Someone gets it!
DroogieSteve 1 year ago
I get really irked by Kermode. I think he's an incredibly pretentious idiot. BUT.... I really admire his confidence to say whatever he thinks no matter what the reaction. Mayo laughed when Kermode said he understood the film better than the actor who appeared in it, and I admire that Kermode held his ground. I dislike horror, would have no problem if half of it was banned, and love the slapstick "sexist" comedies he hates, but he's interesting, so I still listen to him.
Larkspladge 1 year ago
Not Trier at his best (Dancer in the Dark), but the cinematography, acting and visual FX was a real treat. Other than that, the story failed to grab me. When you stop caring about what happens to these characters something's wrong. Shocking, yes. Used in the right way? I don't care. That's just it. Hard core Lars fans will of course lap it up (and then eagerly give a five star review to von Triers Melancholia before they've even seen it). We're funny that way.
bruised247 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Kermode truly believes that one should 'trust the tale, not the teller', then why does he feel the need to hold reservations about the sincerity of the film in view of his own opinions about Von Trier?
heyheyjack 2 years ago
Comment removed
heyheyjack 2 years ago
It`s clearly this guy really hate Trier. I cant take this as a serious review if thats the case...
christoffer323 2 years ago
I like Kermode, but he doesn't understand Von Trier's work.
TheDensley7 1 year ago
the only bit of it I could watch in any comfort was when he punched the shit out of the crow. Much better than Spiderman though.
marrason2 2 years ago
Unbearable BS (movie and review).
One maddening thing about this movie is the people like this reviewer who are determined to set up the straw man that people only have a negative reaction to this movie BECAUSE it's "shocking" (violent, sexual, etc.) Easy, pretentious way to dismiss criticism.
While this film may have fine acting and cinematography, it is nevertheless a poorly conceived piece of audience torture. The "art" of the movie does not counterbalance the crappy writing.
cpmkw 2 years ago
It's a challenging film and gruelling to watch, if you don't know it is why are you watching it. And he has a point about shocking films, it's not simply an "easy and pretentious way to dismiss criticism." Shocking films are going to disgust and shock, as they are intended, and therefore garner negative reactions, it does not affect whether or not it is a good film.
ThingOfDoom 2 years ago
@cpmkw crappy writing? you don`t understand cinema!
eldarihno 2 years ago
Great comeback. You sure countered my analysis, huh?
cpmkw 2 years ago
You're right that people often set up a straw man with "obscene and shocking" movies, but I don't see how you can say that Kermode is doing that in this review. When he's discussing The Idiots at 7.04, for instance, he states that all of the fuss about it being shocking was irrelevant, he just thought it was a poorly made film. Frankly I think you're the only one arguing against a straw man here.
blandflabbis 2 years ago
wow, this guy should make movies!
Just kidding.
5555tomasi 2 years ago
Comment removed
Tomat456 2 years ago
Having seen Antichrist recently, I can say that I agree wholeheartedly with Kermode. I think it's von Trier's best work by a long shot. I still can't believe that Dafoe doesn't think it's about misogyny, but hey, to each his own.
TulseLuper 2 years ago
I watched it last night and I thought overall it was great. The ending though... I agree with Kermode that it's essentially a joke. To take it literally it becomes the most mysoganistic think I've ever seen. And Lars Von Trier 'hates women' right? He's laughing at them all.
Jadabh3 2 years ago 2
this is the first critic about antichrist that i agree with.
Lancemaker 2 years ago
Well I've now seen the film and I can safely say that all the hype about it being utterly depraved, sick and disgusting is completely unfounded. Yes it has some uncomfortable scenes that are both irksome and wince inducing but no way should this film be censored or even considered to be banned as those so called controversial scenes are important and integral to the story and themes of the film.
petertyson2 2 years ago 30
well said
Jadabh3 2 years ago
@petertyson2
buddy, so is it really disturbing as a lot of people claimed to be? i wanted to watch this movie, but i'm just too pansy too watch disturbing movies...
frodonet 1 year ago
@frodonet
Depends on what you mean by disturbing. If you're put off watching the film because you've been told that it's a gross out gorefest horror film then you've been misled. It's more psychological in it's interrpretation of horrofic themes, there is very little in the way of gore or bloodshed apart from one or two scenes which in themselves are not particularly gory but do make the viewer wince.On the whole it's a film about female psychosexuality....if that helps, lol.
petertyson2 1 year ago
@petertyson2 thx thx
frodonet 1 year ago
@petertyson2 It's extremely graphic though, I found it disturbing, but then you're right that what you see works with the themes of the film. Certain parts were shocking, but that's the point. It's a film I don't think I'll ever forget.
SethHesio 1 year ago
I'm confused. Did he like it or not?
Lateralus347 2 years ago
maybe he doesnt know ye.? movies like this take more then one viewing, its possible he dislikes and likes it both
robaquarian 2 years ago
After watching it myself a few days ago, I completely understand where Kermode is coming from now. I have no idea where I stand with this film.
Lateralus347 2 years ago
Me too. I thought it was about to be an important film about the horror genre, deconstructing it's obsession with the female ideal, but in the end it becomes about Lars Von Trier laughing at his critics intentionally disappearing up his own pretentious mysoganistic arse. It's very clever Mr Trier but what about the ending we deserve?
Jadabh3 2 years ago
was it as violent as passion of the christ?
robaquarian 2 years ago
no... because the passion of the christ was an argument in blood lust and I found it despicable. In Antichrist the violence is EXTREME, but justified in the context of the themes it's trying to explore. They are bad and they'll make you squirm but they come quick like a punch and fades. I was more distraught simply by watching a person in complete despair. To put the extremity of the violence in context Irreversable stays with the agony much much longer.
Jadabh3 2 years ago
Comment removed
RITEFAIR 2 years ago
The names of the characters in the film are "man" and "woman".
Neonman78 2 years ago
lol
Uktrayf 2 years ago
I thought they were calls "he" and "she"
Ididitandwhat 2 years ago 2
Yes they are.
petertyson2 2 years ago
He says man and woman because the characters in the film are nameless, simply they are referred to as He and She a slight nod to the biblical Adam and Eve story.
petertyson2 2 years ago 3
I stand corrected
RITEFAIR 2 years ago
It's completely true what Kermode says about the hysteria and fuss that the film has kicked up, critics and journos saying that it's disgusting and depraved without actually seeing it makes them all part of what the director is trying to create in the first place. How can anyone have anykind of judgement on something that they have yet to witness?...It's ridiculous.
petertyson2 2 years ago 4
Can we have part 2, 3 & 4 of this review....
ConvectiveNorth 2 years ago
This is only half of the review...he's actually quite kind to Lars later in it. It also got film of the week...
ConvectiveNorth 2 years ago
As much as I enjoy Kermode's reviews and usually agree with him, at times like this he can be a genuine tosser.
billfenner1967 2 years ago
Why? I think that he's being pretty evenhanded here.
hanshotfirst1138 2 years ago
Because he's evidently more concerned with the film-maker rather than the film. As he said, he has a problem with Lars von Trier and has made up his mind that he's a misogynist long before ever seeing this film, so, off he goes on his anti-LvT screed. His opinion and his right, certainly, but it reveals more about Kermode's own world view and politics than it does about this film itself.
Still, as I said in my earlier post, I never ever miss a Kermode review and genuinely enjoy his work.
billfenner1967 2 years ago
Yes but it says something that he can still hail Antichrist as Von Trier's best work despite what he thinks of him personally or his other films. He also really liked Dogville and Manderlay so he's more open-minded about the man than it seems. Certainly more open-minded than the columnist who trashed Antichrist without having seen it.
TulseLuper 2 years ago
Kermode's only on his whole 'misogynist' trip because he's pussy-whipped by his feminist uni professor wife - see his reviews for any recent comedy featuring breasts, crude humour and sexual content also. You can't take anything seriously from this 50's throwback plonker!
gingerbreadface 2 years ago
Yeah...that's because comedies that focus on breasts, crude humor and sexual content usually are misogynist.
TulseLuper 2 years ago 2
No, it's entirely because of what I mentioned, which is well known to anyone who is familiar to Kermode, and indeed is a negative point to even his most rabid devotees. Face it, Kermode is held up as the eptiome of 'telling it like it is' by his fanbase, but he is just as biased, prejudiced and a sell-out as any other reviewer - and in this case, it's not even really his own opinions!!
gingerbreadface 2 years ago
Well yeah, it's a matter of opinion. Of course he's biased. Everyone is biased about films. Look, I'd be the first to admit that I've disagreed with Kermode several times, but it's clear that he knows film and he's a very entertaining broadcaster. Are his views on misogyny influenced by his wife? Perhaps, but you know what? When I see these obnoxious comedies or horror films that treat women as nothing but objects, I really can't see what's so off-base about his views.
TulseLuper 2 years ago
whose opinions are they? do tell
RITEFAIR 2 years ago
Nonsense- Kermode's hair is a national treasure!
You may not be a million miles away with regard to his wife however. If you listen to the show, the way in which he squirms every time Simon refers to her as "Mrs Kermode" is priceless!
williamwilson666 2 years ago 15
@williamwilson666 has mark ever changed his hairstyle? i would like to see him with a zac efron look.
ec123456789able 1 year ago
@ec123456789able Not in at least 20 years. He showed a pic of his pass the first time he went to the Cannes festival and the only difference was his hair was darker.
williamwilson666 1 year ago
I like Kermode, but he hangs out with Germaine Greer too much. You're right.
TheDensley7 1 year ago
You're right. He thinks that any movie with female characters is misogynistic. How come nobody ever mentions Misandry!
TheDensley7 1 year ago
@TheDensley7 Good point! Most people don't even know what misandry is! Well said.
Larkspladge 1 year ago
@gingerbreadface That's possibly the most misogynistic comment I've read on YouTube!
FriedEggsandChips 9 months ago
A well acted, beautifully shot bag of shite.
LSJShez 2 years ago 2
more of a psycholical horror like the shining, went to see it tonight, thought it was great direction - reminded me of tarkovsky, which was validated by a line at the end saying it was in honour of tarkovsky. very hard to watch in places, in the way that funny games is for instance. I liked the lyncesque bits best e.g. the talking fox. film is essentially about the psychology of a complex family relationship, grief and mysogeny - I think trier does go too far with the mysogenist theme at the end
iamtheblackcrowking 2 years ago
did Lars von Trier's come up with the dogma principles ?
JAMFREAK06 2 years ago
It's a solid enough review. I'm going to check it out.
One thing though, Mark seems adamant that Von Trier is a trickster and his film is mysoginistic (spelling?) in this review, but when Dafoe shot him down about that in the last interview, Mark went quiet on it. No point arguing it now.
LSJShez 2 years ago
mark composing, i never noticed how much is conveyed by his hands
rayray160990 2 years ago
What an awesome experience this film is. Would recommend it to very few, but if you're up for it you'll be blown away.
RockBottomRiser21 2 years ago
Why is this in every cinema except mine?
kiethebailey 2 years ago 3
It only played in 38 cinemas in the UK over its opening weekend.
Synchronization259 2 years ago
i'm seriously tempted to travel to see this...though i could wait for the blu ray...
nightwatchman86 2 years ago
i got the blu ray hehe :)
deftify 2 years ago
I just travelled 120 miles to see this,An incredible film,dont listen to the lazy hacks that decribe this a vile,its one of the most powerful pieces of cinema you could ever hope to see.
splicer45 2 years ago
I really want to see Antichrist but no cinemas in my area are showing it which is annoying. Gonna have to see if I can find it online anywhere or just wait several months for the DVD.
petertyson2 2 years ago
I've never seen a Lars von Trier film before but I think I might give this a go.
Darkasthenight06 2 years ago
Watch Dogville. It's possibly the best film ever made.
unrest655321 2 years ago
Now I'm more confused about this movie.
moeezS 2 years ago
Normally I have no patience for Lars von Trier but I think I have to see Antichrist now. In America, they're cutting the genital mutilation, and for once, I'm relieved.
TulseLuper 2 years ago
Am a masochist analphile. What's wrong with that?
detriplea 2 years ago
Anal what?!
GoGoGomy 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Anal lover that's what I meant you fucking nigger.
detriplea 2 years ago
how come the clips are pictures and not videos?
GregKarwowski 2 years ago
beacause this was broadcast on radio!
markoos88 2 years ago 4
cus theyre audio clips for the radio
this is a streaming webcam from the radio 5 live show
sharpsuitedmod 2 years ago 2