lasttimeisaw A 17th century drama about the antediluvian act of witchery persecution and the excruciating human benightedness inflicted by religious indoctrination, Carl Theodor Dreyer's DAY OF WRATH is a sublimely slow-paced threnody that sets to shock and awe. Prior to Ingmar Bergman's soul-searching felicity in psychoanalyzing our mentation on the existential basis, on that same Scandinavian land, Dreyer's more clinical and religion-inflected study has already plunged its scalpel into the realm of complex and DAY OF WRATH, albeit its archaic subject matter, is a cinematic accomplishment nonpareil.In the central there is a simple moral allegory, Anne (Movin) is the much younger wife of the gaunt rector Absalon (Roose), she falls for the latter's adult son Martin (Rye) from his first marriage, and her feeling is reciprocated, but their forbidden affair can never reach a happy ending because of the overshadowing witch-hunting, an example has been set by an elderly woman Marte (Svierkier), who has been accused as such and is subjected to the stake for immolation and before perishing, an anguished Marte implores Absalon in vain to save her just like he has bailed out Anne's mother from the same undoing, which also explains his unbefitting union with Anne in the first place. Advancing with assignations with Martin and domestic hostility with Absalon's stern mother Merete (a horrific Neiiendam), Anne comes off as a self-liberating soul bent on sloughing herself from the loveless arranged marriage, she is cunning enough to ensure that Martin is on the same page with her but naively takes his affection for granted and ignores a man's guilt stemming from betraying his own father. It takes two to tango but eventually, it is only the woman who has to pay for the consequence in an era that no scientific post-mortem is at hand to find out the true cause of a death, thus it is easily to blame it on a woman's curse and then denounces her as a witch. And amplifying a mystical tenor of the occurrences, Dreyer takes an equivocal view on the witchery itself, because apparently both Merete's and Anne's curses are eventually fulfilled, so maybe they are witches after all, which sends out a contrarian message might leave viewers considerably bewildered. Dreyer channels a more animated and poignant performance out of Lisbeth Movin's Anne in tandem with a stiffer and more forthright acting bent of other thespians, and incredibly constructs a solemn chiaroscuro environment out of its austere setting with superb compositional choices (awe-striking portraitures galore) and camera mobility, the film is draped with a vampiric ominousness even in the outdoor scenes, which is not relieved by the portentous score. It is not a comforting chamber piece to wallow in and requires a certain acquired taste and religious nourishment for Dreyer's sense of rhythm and a story so execrably backward. But credits must be bestowed to Dreyer's symbolic coup de maître amongst others, for example, that final shot morphing from a cross to a stake is simply here to stay to remind us there is a thin fine line between religious devotion and theological abuses.

Brian Berta I'm starting to get the impression that Dreyer's style doesn't do much for me. While he's a talented filmmaker, I feel like his movies often have pacing issues. While "Vampyr" may not have taken too much time to pick up, its pacing issues were noticeable for me since the film was only 73 minutes long (although, it's the least glaring Dreyer film I had pacing issues with). I also had similar issues with "Ordet" as its opening was slow. Pacing issues were present in this film as well. After the first 35 minutes (which were, admittedly, well-done), I felt like this film made so many mistakes in terms of handling buildup and pacing that I could simply not enjoy it.In Denmark in the 17th century, a family is effected by a merciless witch hunt. After an elderly woman named Herlof Marte is accused of being a witch by a pastor named Absalon, his wife, Anne, falls in love with Martin, the pastor's son. However, this eventually brings about disastrous consequences.My favorite part of the movie is the first third. I liked it for a number of reasons. Firstly, it has a great setup, great buildup, and a haunting conclusion to it which lingered with me long after viewing it. I also loved how it felt like a standalone short film. I like it when movies have particular scenes/portions which give me this feeling as they tend to stick out for me. I also liked how the first act established Absalon's character. I hated his character not just because he was involved in the trial of witches, but how he went about his trials. During the first act, we learned that Absalon spared Anne's mother after she was accused of witchcraft only because he wanted to marry Anne. It seemed unfair how Absalon was going to let Herlof Marte die.However, that brings me to what I liked the most about the first third of the film. It didn't suffer from the same issue I have with other movies about the witch hunt. Most movies about the witch hunt use the fact that the characters are being tried for something they didn't do to get you attached to a character. While this is preferable to style over substance, it can get boring after you see it used a lot. This movie not only used that, but Absalon's sadism to get me attached to Herlof Marte. For that reason, I felt like her character development was handled well. The opening was also memorable. The film opens up with Herlof Marte in her house when she suddenly hears bells indicating that someone has just been accused of witchcraft. However, we soon see Herlof Marte grow increasingly panicked as she realizes that she's the one their hunting.The first third of the film was excellent. Unfortunately, however, the rest of the film didn't interest me that much. Most of the film that followed the first third chronicled the relationship between Anne and Martin. The second act could've been great as well, but it wasn't handled that well. My issue with the second act was that it was overlong and slow. It just felt like buildup. If the film didn't dwell too long on that sub-plot, I likely wouldn't have an issue with it. However, it was stretched out for most of the film. Nothing happened in that portion of the film which interested me. This was a major letdown, because the film had a promising start. Eventually, however, one of the characters dies near the end, and the film does get interesting as it builds off from that. However, despite a haunting final scene that succeeded due to its ambiguity, the final act of the film wasn't handled that well. Since it happened so close to the end, the ending felt abrupt. The final act felt like it was over before it even started. The pacing should've been adjusted a lot. The second act should have been much shorter, and the final act should've been much longer. The film was unbalanced.In conclusion, I didn't like this film. While its worth a watch for its first act, the rest of the film suffers from being unbalanced in terms of pacing and buildup. I've had issues with Dreyer's style in the past, but this is my least favorite film from him. This will probably be the last film I watch from him for a while (however, I'm still debating whether I should check out "The Passion of Joan of Arc").

bbrooks94 My second Dreyer, after Vampyr. However, while that particular film was perhaps a little inconsistent, this one is fantastic from start to finish. Set in a Danish village in the early 1600s at a time of suspicion and repression, both stemming from religion, it tells the story of Anna, the young second wife of a much older reverend, who has recently allowed the burning of an elderly women accused of witchcraft, and her romance with the quiet son of the reverend. It's an intense and sombre masterpiece, restrained but unbelievably terrifying. Any film about witchcraft reminds me of the British 60s classic The Witchfinder General, and while not as gory or explicit, Day of Wrath is just as, if not more, chilling. A powerful tale of betrayal and paranoia which is beautifully performed and looks stunning. Dreyer's use of light and the realistic atmosphere he creates are convincing enough of his cinematic genius.

jonathan-577 Talk about a haunting movie, and not just in the awful beauty of the compositions; I'm talking about the whole vision. I have spent days grappling with it. Holding out hope for humanity under the bleakest possible circumstances, this fifteenth-century witch hunt story doesn't just flip the good-evil paradigm. The victims of the witch hunt have their own superstitions, their own petty indulgences and murderous impulses; the perpetrators have their own moral agonies. This is a movie about the individual's struggle against a corrupt society where the individual loses: deadly grim, it shows exactly how f*cked-up things can get, and doesn't provide any easy answers about how to get out from under it, except crucially to assert that it can't be done alone. But the agonizingly tragic sense of loss and corruption - of youth, of love, of freedom - can only come, I think, from a deep belief that a better world is possible. If you hate Ingmar Bergman, you probably will not get this, yet another dour and glacial Scandinavian narrative of yet another dark night of the soul. But the mood is not just a mannerism, and the craft is so brilliant that I for one was able to overcome all my biases and get totally swept away in it, overwhelmed. Dreyer really, really knows what he's doing.