I won't give this waste of time a 1-star rating only because I don't know what "Weak Sauce" is supposed to mean, but I _do_ know what "Terrible" means...and this is Terrible. I still have no idea what the writers were going for, but they didn't achieve it…unless, of course, what they were going for was simply to dupe viewers into wasting 108 minutes of their life. Mission accomplished, if that's what you're aiming for. Wow, this was absolutely awful all the way around: from the opening scene of someone's (we're supposed to believe it's Willem Dafoe, and maybe it is?) balls flopping wildly in a closeup graphic sex scene, to the final few seconds as a mob of make-believe women fade into the woods.... I'm (almost) at a loss for words. The one - and ONLY - scene that was even noteworthy was the infamous "barn scene"...but to waste an hour and 48 minutes of your life just for one scene, that's just stupid. And yet, I fell for it. And I'm stupid. And if you waste an hour and 48 minutes on this steaming pile of putrefaction, then yes...that makes you stupid also. This was a waste of my time and my thought processes; I kept expecting something to kick in and become an actual film worth watching but it never happened. This was someone's idea (I feel certain) of "art" but it was soft-core pornography with a psychotic twist that made no sense. This was just stupid. Utterly stupid. And I'm stupid for wasting my time on this. Do not waste your time on this; it is not worth it.

She: "Nature is Satan's church".

The meaning of Antichrist: A person or thing regarded as supremely evil or as a fundamental enemy or opponen (the battle between Christ and the Antichrist).

A film like "Antichrist" must viewed more than once as I feel most of the audiences may or may not understand the film and the symbolism. I know this just from reviews that this movie got and it's shockingly bad. I mean, really low ratings from some people and one article called this movie "An arty value mess", from some sh*tty movie magazine. The movie also got booed at the Cannes Film Festival and I'm here shock about all this, because 'Antichrist' was a great movie and a much better film then what I heard from people. Is it f**ked up? Yes, it can put some people off by it's gory sexual imagine, but it's the special kind of f**ked up that makes the movie and it's symbolism work by it's hidden messages and it's graphic imagine to get that message across.

Charlottle Gainsbourg did a outstanding and believable performance as the damaged mother. Her scenes with her dealing with the lost of her son was truly heartbreaking. She questions life and blames herself for what happened and I did felt like the world was ending on her. She did so brilliant in this movie.

Willem Dafoe also did a brilliant performance in this movie. Dafoe is always great in everything and he sure was great this movie. Same with Charlottle Gainsbourg, I believed his pain and hard work of trying to keep he's wife from losing it and all of that is shown in Dafoe performance and it was excellent.

Willem and Charlotte character's don't have names in the movie, but they are known as "He" and "She", which is kind of interesting as their names main a mystery. I like that the movie doesn't give the character's in the movie names and the fact that the other people in the movie they faces are blurred so you really don't who they are as Willem and Charlotte are the only ones not to get they face blurred.

Lars Von Trier is the type of director that puts his own style and true art to his films, because the movies that he has directed (from what I have seen so far) have that unique style that make me feel that the director what's to show true art to cinema, but I also noticed that he sometimes re-use shots or the type of sound in his later movies as it's art style I guest? Like the slow motion shots in 'Antichrist' will later be use in the film 'Melancholia'. The opening of this movie was also re-used in 'Nymphomaniac', so it's very clear that this director will make something brilliantly artistic in his movie and thought to do it again later on...yeah one of those directors. But all that aside, I think Lars Von Trier directing in this movie was well done and quite unique in a artistic style.

'Antichrist' has probably one of the best opening to a movie I've ever seen. It's all shot in slow motion and it's black and white with some beautiful music playing in the background. When I saw that opening scene, I known straight away that this movie is going to be fantastic and I was right.

Now the hidden symbolism in "Antichrist" can be easily analysis like these a scene and this isn't a spoiler so your save here, but anywhere Dafoe character comes across a fox that he thought was sleeping but that wasn't the case as the fox wasn't sleeping or resting, but more like eating itself. I thought about this and maybe this might be a symbolism of Dafoe character eating it's own guilt and this is shown by the fox eating itself. I mean, he might be seeing the fox, because him and he's wife feel guilty for the son death. What makes it worse is the fox saying "Chaos Reigns".

The movie is really messed up and I really do mean that. It left me feeling cold for half an hour. It's been about four days since I've seen the movie and after putting my thoughts together and what I think the movies hidden message can easily be spoiled to some who may have interest on seeing this movie, so I'm just going to leave you with that thought in mind of what the movie is about, and how messed up the movie is going to make you feel.

My only problem with the movie is that it's really hard to take seriously sometimes just because of how over the top it can be. But that's it really.

Overall rating: Antichrist is a fantastic experimental horror movie with beautiful shots, excellent directing, and brilliant acting from Dafor and Charlotte.

From the beginning it promises to be daring and aim to makes us feel some deep emotions. Does it live up to it?
Early on, the camerawork is a little off putting and feels the wrong style for the story. The story focuses on grief and a personal relationship.
Soon it's endless whispered memories, psychobabble and rolling around with arses showing. Arty enough for you yet? Dafoe's character is nothing short of a control freak and she is a nut. Don't expect and character development because that's the way its staying.

Then it's off to the wood to.... grieve? Lots of boring meaningless dialogue. Some dialogue is meaningful sounding, yet is still meaningless. How is that even possible in a movie about the subject of grief? Fun fact: Defoe likes to sleep with one hand out the window. That probably means something incredibly deep and complex but an imbecile like me just sees a hand out of a window. Maybe I should purposely read more into it? Yeah that makes sense. Some forced harrowing scenes showing how us raw nature. How very very purposely brave. Is it art yet? The characters hardly resemble humans at any point. The garden of Eden had a talking snake and here near a cabin called Eden we see a talking fox. Great. This movie is now a mess of spiritual crap and pretentious film making that wants to be powerful. Nothing is relatable of course. OK maybe we've all masturbated against a tree and then have been slapped just before then hands appear... but the rest is complete arty farty crap.

Oppresing and disturbing movie. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are superb and the OST is well chosen but the movie leaves too many questions open which leaves a bitter after taste.