Borgman (2013)

What makes it different from others?

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

It's really intriguing, diverse and confusing, also engrossing movie. However, there are many references to Christian culture and myth. If you don't have knowledge on this topic, you can't get the point. The symbol seems strange. After watching movie, you should surf on the web and take notes to see the bigger picture. Still, it's well-done movie, also disturbing. Although, the questions raised on remain unanswered, the curiosity is always kept alive. Throughout the movie the number of questions which remain unanswered continually increasing. Acting is very well. If you think about the popular movies which seem similar to each other, thanks to its uncommon atmosphere this could be the most outstanding movie I've seen this year.

I have mixed feelings about this film especially after reading explanations after viewing it. I was immediately intrigued by this film after watching the trailer months ago. Overall, I enjoyed it although it had a disturbing quality to it that I cannot shake maybe because I didn't fully understand the motivations behind the actions. I had a general idea what was happening throughout the movie but was still confused at times and did not understand all of the symbolism.The storyline regarding the children was the most confusing to me. They had unwavering trust toward Camiel from the get go and were completely docile without showing any humanity. If they would have been portrayed as 'normal' children from the start, then their eventual manipulation would have been much more disturbing. The 'mark of Satan' on the children baffled me as well because they made it seem like some type of procedure had been done with similar effects to a lobotomy or something. This was before I knew it was supposed to be the 'mark of Satan' which the viewer previously saw on Camiel as well. I honestly think giving them a brand or a tattoo would have been more effective (but maybe too obvious?).As the film progressed, I kept wondering what is Camiel's goal in all of this as he didn't seem to have any motivation and was just a very intelligent but insane person. Now I understand that he basically was recruiting minions and trying to have 'fun' at it all the while. All of the efforts to manipulate and kill when it did not seem necessary was more or less just a game to achieve desired results. I also don't fully realize why he didn't take the wife who had obviously fallen under his control.If you are a more intelligent person than I (which is likely) and figure out all of the symbolism and motivations while the film happens, I could see this film being very rewarding. With my lack of religious and folklore knowledge, I was admittedly pretty lost at times but still enjoyed it while having a general idea what ultimately was happening. If you know the story and everything ahead of time, I could actually see this being kind of boring and unrewarding. So basically, I fell in the middle and liked the movie but could see myself on either side of the fence depending on some prerequisite knowledge.

This film seemed to come out of nowhere, similar to the way Camille Borgman did. I am a long time fan of the horror/dark drama genre but a new member to IMDb. with that being said, I absolutely loved this film. I loved the darkness to Camille. What was with him living in the ground though? The movie never fell back on that fact nor did it have an explanation for it. I wouldn't say the viewing nature of this film is horror, but the concepts that the film holds are horror. The ideas are extremely dark and the violence is extreme. This is an atmospheric movie that sets quite the mood. It had me thinking about it for a few days after seeing it. It's one of the better movies I've seen this past year

Who equates horror with the Netherlands? Windmills, tulips, cocoa, and Hans Brinker all come to mind but none of these things are cause for alarm. Director Alex van Warmerdam evidently wants to change your mind about Dutch stereotypes with "Borgman".This is one strange film. Who, or more importantly, what is Borgman? In the opening scenes, we follow a group of locals including a gun- toting priest, roust Borgman from his underground home in a forest. No explanation is given about why a mob is after this person, yet the inclusion of the priest hints that Mr. B. might be something other than human. Mr. B. alerts a few other underground dwellers that the jig is up and runs away. Mr. B. wanders onto the property of an evidently well-to-do couple in a boxlike house, asks to take a bath and when turned away by the man of the house, Mr. B. insinuates he "knows" the wife. A beating commences and Mr. B finally gets the attention of the wife who is feeling guilty over her husband's violence. So far, so good. Borgman worms his way into the lives of the family he's "adopted", aided and abetted by the wife who appears to be drawn to this dirty homeless man. The wife keeps her new friend out of the sight of her husband and bad things happen. About halfway through this unsettling story, all the tension and suspense is allowed to spiral out into surreal episodes that eventually become numbing. Borgman has friends. We don't know who or what they are. Two women might be able to become dogs. The family's gardener and his wife are destroyed in the film's most unpleasant scene, allowing Borgman to take the gardener's place. Shorn of his beard, he goes unrecognized. Scant reason for everything that happens during the second half of the film is where the story fails. It becomes boring. Since we cannot penetrate the motivations of the lead character or his allies, it's difficult to care what happens to whom. The director tightens the noose for an hour and then it all goes slack.The are some memorable visuals here, especially the bodies in the water. Many questions are asked of the viewer, but no resolution or answers are given to reward your attention. The ending is both abrupt and frustrating. One suspects that the director and screenplay refused to give any easy answers, leaving the viewer to either think this is one amazing metaphysical satire. Or maybe you just got your head messed with for two hours and ended up with a headache trying to figure out what wasn't there to begin with. Five stars for the performance of Jan Bijvoet as the title character and the aforementioned visuals. Now, about those dogs...