He does give the film some praise, saying:
Parts of the picture are exquisitely crafted. They have a lyricism and a milky, dreamlike quality that evoke memories of the Russian film-maker Andrei Tarkovsky, to whom the film is dedicated.He does at least given a fair and well argued account of why he dislikes the film, and dismisses claims the film is 'torture porn'. He adds:
The sad truth is that there is nothing in Antichrist that...[the BBFC]...has not let through before, with an 18 certificate.Which begs the question - why the fuss? But then the most interesting paragraph of all. He says:
In its defence, Antichrist turns out to be not the picture that I have seen vilified in the press, sometimes by writers who lack any context of recent cinema with which to compare it, and in at least one case by someone who hadn’t even taken the elementary step of seeing it.Who does he mean? Surely not Christopher Hart? Writing in the, er, Daily Mail.