Jacques98 Review of Antichrist

Antichrist (2009)

It should never take that long to get you on your knees.

[6/10 · 6 December 2009]

What happened to movies that asked original questions? They were replaced by laughable pseudo-"dark physiology" films like Session 9. They were replaced by unoriginal Kubrick rip-offs like Irreversible. They were replaced by kindergarten-shallow surrealist attempts like The Fountain. They were replaced by generic by-the-numbers "thought provoking" Hollywood blockbusters like District 9. They were replaced by emo films about sex-deprived middle-aged men like Watchmen. They were replaced by boring, shallow Oscar bait like There Will Be Blood. They were replaced by shock films made by little boys that couldn't get a girlfriend, got a couple years older, and made a movie about it like Deadgirl. And if this website didn't limit the amount of words in this review, I'd list at least 50 more movies in this paragraph. I'm no pretentious prick or anything, but, folks, seriously: Either, (1) humanity is made up consecutively of second-grade English class idiots, (2), I'm a super genius, or, (3), most movies are pathetic excuses of cinema and storytelling. (In case you're one of the idiots I'm talking about, #3 was the correct answer, by the way.) But, it's our lucky day: Antichrist is far from shallow. In fact, it's pretty much loaded. It's a smart movie. But that's about it. As a story, it's pretty generic and formulaic. The brains: Antichrist asks the questions: "What if Satan, not God, created the earth?" And, "If that is so, what would that entail for the human race?" You don't have to be religious to ponder questions like this. The film often substitutes "God" and "Satan" for morality and immorality; for normalcy and chaos; for purpose and nihilism; for normalcy (Freud) and anti-normalcy (the subconscious). Personally, it's nice to see a film take psychology out of the middle-school philology class level that most movies use, and bring it into the real world, showcased through realistic characters. This is less a movie about people trying to find God (or Satan), and more a movie about two people trying to understand the nature of pain and grief and cruelty on an epic level. It's not another cliché "Human nature is EVIL!!!" film. It's a film that asks WHY human nature is evil. The brain that WOULD NOT DIE: As smart as Antichrist really is, it's, sadly, also pretty retarded. The overall story is just the basic beginning: hook/middle: plot/end: climax that they taught you back in middle school. The ending scene before the Epilogue is so cliché, it was basically copy/passed from The Shining, High Tension, Saw II, and every other humanistic horror movie ever. It makes me wonder how a writer/director like Lars von Trier can be smart enough to make a movie that's . . . well, actually smart, but still make that same movie that is this . . . well, childish. Also, I should note a couple other things. The movie tries to say something about sex and sexuality, but that entire subplot becomes a cliché quick. There are thousands of movies that deal with sexuality, and anyone who generally thinks they have something original to say on the subject should be pointed and laughed at. The movie literally opens up with shots of a middle-aged man's butt, graphically constricting and flapping in a close-up sex scene. His ball sack flaps into frame next. How's that for cinematic maturity? I don't know about you, but artistic gay porn without any reason whatsoever just isn't my thing. In American Pie, whatever. In a horror-drama about the evil of human nature, it's hard not to just dismiss Lars von Trier as a horny 13-year-old boy that can't get a girlfriend. Stephen King explored many of the same EXACT sexual scenes in his book Gerald's Game, which came out decades before this movie. But where Antichrist uses sex for purposeless filler, Gerald's Game uses sex to explain real honest events that happen every day. That'd the difference between a hack and a storyteller. The violence is average. Much less than you've seen in any of the recent Saw or Hostel movies. I don't even know why Lars von Trier made such a pathetic attempt to add such cheesy shock-violence that wasn't shocking into this movie anyway. He defended himself in one interview by calling it "artistic honesty". As if people really get bolted through the ankle every day in real life. Yeah, honesty. Right. Uh-huh. The cinematography, which everyone is raving about for some stupid reason, is . . . pretty typical. Yeah, yeah—you have your black-and-white slow-mo scene (Sin City) and your choppy scenes (Saw) and your wide shot scenes (A Clockwork Orange) and your blurry scenes (umm, every cheesy horror movie ever) and so on. There's nothing new about this directing whatsoever. It's just a mash-up of everyone else. What's the big deal? And my final thoughts on the overall movie, I'll repeat that: What's the big deal? 6/10 Postscript: Okay. Okay. I liked it. I liked it a lot. But you didn't really expect me to admit that in a review, did you?