What slop. Conventional misogyny, idiotic allegory, and blandly obvious psychoanalysis all thrown into the same digitally colorized barf bucket (yes, that's Anthony "Slumdog Millionaire" Dod Mantle's work). Dogme whointhewhatnow? And for purpose? To provoke a reaction a Cannes? Hard work, that! Or maybe it was to give the torture porn crowd a run for their money in an art house film? Uh... okay, why? I'd like to exactly what Mr. Von Trier's aesthetic or his conceit is, because I'm pretty sure he does not know. This film has all of the cinematic gloss and charm of a luxury car commercial. There is no point to all of this provocation other than to exacerbate us further with Von Trier's adolescent bad boy routine. The "homage" to Tarkovsky really takes the cake.

Von Trier has made some good films despite himself, but this is not one of them.

I'd differ with Ovidius by noting that misogyny is totally unconventional nowadays, and a tongue-in-cheek exploration of the idea that men and women are (gasp) different is interesting, especially when it's done as shockingly and engrossingly as in Antichrist. But the movie is definitely misogynistic, and I understand where Ovidius is coming from.

I also liked the allegory, and don't care about the director's personality. So... differences of opinion abound about this movie. I'd say it's worth checking out.

Also, it took 4 days before I was able to masturbate without my own penis frightening me.