Beauty (2011)

Powerful

Good concept, poorly executed.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

First this flick is easily 99% a big bore. And the 1% that isn't a big bore will turn your stomach! François van Heerden has a real problem and all you can think about while watching this long boring story is having this psycho tossed under the bus.Everything here is ugly - the actors, the acting, the dialog, the settings, the story, etc. So the producers titled it BEAUTY. What irony! You'll be hard pressed to find beauty in this flick.I got the message, which could have been told in half the time, François van Heerden mission in life is to destroy that which is beautiful. To bring the lives of others down to his level. He's old, fat, ugly and unhappy. His wife is a stone faced complaining old hag, and all his supposed friends are just as hideous. So when he sees someone that appears to be happy, focused, and living a normal life he makes it his purpose to destroy them. The ending of the movie says it all.

Right down to its title, this film is designed to be little more than sensationalism of the most repugnant type. 'Ugliness' would be a more apt title. Why the South African government, film industry, or any industry, would want to be connected with subject matter so repulsive, beggars belief. To send this lowly work out into the world, tells us perhaps we've lost our sense of reality. Between the young director, his editor, and cinematographer, they have created a movie looking more like un-edited 'rushes' for a TV commercial. The script would probably be very brief, as there's maybe 40mins of story, but the film labors for almost 2 hrs under endless long scenes to pad out the emptiness. Ultimately, many of these extended shots are used to set up very ordinary situations (this alone may leave you tempted to watch much of it at 1 1/2 times speed) It all leads up to an inexplicably violent homosexual rape that's nothing short of unforgivable. The film makers are inexcusably 'getting off' on the ugly brutality...to the point of leaving any discerning viewer wanting to walk out, or dump the disc.This horrific action (along with several other dismal character traits) are then left unexamined, so this hideous psychopathic bi-sexual, can now go home to infect* his mostly neglected wife...until his next 'infatuation' (*Historicaly, A.I.D.S. is recorded as originating from the African continent, and often proliferates within overactive bi- sexual circles ~ and while media doesn't report on aids as it used to, it's unfortunately alive and murderously well...in all fact, it's reported increase is at a 20year high) The film offers almost no believable character development, no convincing motive, no resolve, just excess (and lots of it). Equally disturbing is that South Africa entered this into Cannes film festival, as their offering for best foreign film! But, maybe there's still hope, for eventually it was voted out. Some viewers (and 'critics') have attempted to look for meaning and metaphor, but it's easy to read depth into any film, even where there is none. I tend to side with other reviewers who have expressed concern --that basically, what amounts to little more than pornographic films-- are even considered for, let alone allowed, to run on cable (shame on SBS/WM) - free to air - then sold on DVD by unscrupulous distributors who would sell their souls for a profit. Trash remains trash, no matter how expensive, polished, well performed, or so claimed as 'Art' it may be. Doe's a world already drowning in nastiness need it? Do we in the world gain a better understanding of ourselves from it?. If these works offer no positive benefit to society, then they should be seriously considered for a re-edit (so easy with today's technology) or as we used to, return it to the country of origin. Let them further corrupt their own lands ~ OK, so these suggestions will upset the selfish, 'freedom to over-indulge' crowd! But hey, what's more important?

About 90 minutes into this "film" the main character, Francois (played by Deon Lotz) lures his "nephew", Christian (played by Charlie Keegan), to his hotel room under the pretense that he is too inebriated to get there on his own. Out of nowhere the uncle lunges onto his nephew like a lion taking down an antelope. Then Francois, sitting on his nephew's chest, pinning his arms down with his knees, proceeds to pound his face like a sledge hammer with his fist, hard enough to fracture his jaw, break his nose, and cause some level of brain concussion. "Uncle" Francois then undoes his pants and forces his nephews face into his own crotch and rapes him orally. Blood is everywhere. The nephew, by then, sufficiently injured and in full blown medical shock, is then turned over onto his stomach, pants are pulled down, and the uncle proceeds to rape him anally while strangling him. Just in case this isn't horrifying enough for you, the camera angle is then changed to an overhead shot so that you can see the victims backside as he's being brutalized. His injuries from this attack, both exterior and interior, physical and mental, leave him comatose and unable to move even after he is no longer being physically restrained. This film is the "rape" equivalence of a snuff film. Its only real purpose is to titillate at the basest, and most disgusting, reptilian level. The makers of this crap would have you believe that what happened in that hotel room was the result of repressed homosexuality. Again, just to reiterate, he brutally beat and brutally raped his "nephew". Repressed homosexuality may lead to alcoholism, drug addiction, a secret life of clandestine sex, but it does not lead to sadistic sexual sadism and rape. Either make a film about a repressed homosexual, or make one about a rapist. But do not conflate the two. One is a tortured soul. The other tortures victims. It is unbelievable to read the "10's" here that congratulate this filmmaker on his "penetrating look into the torment of sexual repression". What this actually is, is a glimpse into the soulless evil of sadistic sexual psychopath. Think, Boston Strangler, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy. Francois, in this film, is not Dennis Quaid in "Far From Heaven". He is a brutal criminal. And about half an hour before the brutal rape you'll discover that he's a racist and a homophobe as well when he travels to the South African plains to an isolated ranch house where he stands around drinking with other racist/homophobes until they get drunk enough to dull their mutual disgust for one another enough so that they can have gross-out sex with each other while watching porn. Those two wonderful scenes take up about five minutes of screen time. The other hour and thirty- two minutes is composed of Francois thinking, thinking, thinking. Looking, thinking, looking. Thinking, looking, thinking. Staring, looking, thinking, looking, staring. The only mercy, which you are as of yet unaware, is that there is no raping going on. There is very little dialog. And what there is, is banal. Then the gross-out sex in the ranch house with a bunch of sweaty fat old men. Then the brutal, and truly horrifying, rape; and that's about it. This is a sick, sick, movie. Not because it shows something horrible that is difficult to watch, or shouldn't be explored, but because it attempts to explain a crime, or gain sympathy for a criminal, by portraying that criminal as a victim of a repressive society, and his crime as the byproduct of that repression. THAT, is criminal. Yes, we should repress assault, battery, and rape, as much as is humanly possible. Those are crimes. Prosecute, and then off to prison you go for a possible twenty-five years to life. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.00. And do not make a stupid movie surrounding the crime.Oh, yeah. The ending (as if this couldn't get any worse). Francois is out alone at a restaurant for lunch and sees a happy gay couple across the dining room sharing romantic glances with one another. He looks wistfully (the looking, staring, thinking - again) as if to imply, "if only I could be "out" I wouldn't have to brutally beat and rape my nephew." Hey idiot boy, writer/director Robert Hermanus, sexual battery, assault, and rape, are not the by products of sexual repression. That you are confused about this is - interesting. I don't know what is more disturbing, this film, or that there are some out there who think that this garbage is an insight into repression. This film panders to a gay audience (I am one), in a truly egregious, creepy, and insulting, way. No thanks.It is of no importance whatsoever that Deon Lotz gives a good performance of - someone... It's in the wrong film.

I agree largely with ottoman-umpire's comments. Each scene lingered 10-15 seconds longer than necessary. Sometimes less is more, and certainly in this case I felt that throughout the film. Had it been better edited, it could have built the tension more effectively in a decent 60-minute film.That would also have allowed the addition of a more satisfactory ending. When I saw it, you could almost hear every member of the audience saying to themselves "Is that it?" when the film ended - no resolution, no punishment of Francois for what he had done, no indication of what Francois was thinking/feeling as he watched the gay couple at the end, and whether he learned or grew as a result of what happened (i.e. character development). The movie didn't show him to have any redeeming qualities (in my opinion) so in the end I was hoping he would either be punished for the rape or at least come to grips with his homo- or bi-sexuality and do something positive about it.Also, as Christian was a law student, I thought it likely he wouldn't let things rest and would either go to the police or try to blackmail Francois to get the money he wanted (he may have done, but the purpose of the money in the last scene is not stated).All in all, an interesting but frustrating experience.