Antichrist

It's the film that's dividing critics as we speak. Kevin Maher sees it as "an eerie and discomfiting reflection on our own bestial selves", that is "deftly engineered to disturb". Wendy Ide, however, is less impressed:

"It’s not the horrifying genital mutilation that’s the problem with Von Trier’s latest calculated piece of provocation. Nor is it the unsavoury whiff of misogyny that permeates the film — after all, with Von Trier we’ve been there before. No, the problem lies with the fact that long swathes of this curiously hollow film are so grindingly tedious and emotionally uninvolving. The dialogue is so risible — it sounds like a bad translation of a 1960s Scandinavian play — that you find yourself almost welcoming the scene in which Gainsbourg takes a pair of scissors to her private parts, if only because it gives you something to react to. Von Trier’s imagery is striking, courtesy of the cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, but it’s essentially meaningless — a cobbled-together mess of pretentious references, crowned with a talking fox. Von Trier claims that the film was a form of therapy, but the cynical might suggest that it’s not the film-making he finds cathartic but the attention that results afterwards."

Reviewers don't have to like the films they're reviewing. However, is the implied attack on Von Trier at the end a little bit snarky?