Support NeoGAF

[atr0cious]

Perhaps I should give it some more time to sink in and further ponder upon it, but currently it feels like it was a bit lacking in depth.

Do you think the animal conversion machine actually exists? What was up with the "real world" being so mundane? What happens at the end? These are a few shallow questions, hopefully they help you see the "depth" this film displayed.

This film was one of the worst things I have ever seen in a theater. Almost walked out.

If this is one of the worst films you've ever seen, you need to watch more movies. This movie is objectively better than most anything out this year so far.

 

[ThanksVision]

didn't really care for dogtooth and didn't care for this much either. i laughed every so often but I think the movie's straight-laced dialogue & camerawork acted more as a disservice in the end. the premise is certainly interesting but I don't think the movie provided anything new or novel about companionship. especially in that both groups (couples and loners) kind of taught the protagonist the same lesson in the end... ideal stable matching is fine as a math problem and as a concept, but it could never actually work in society

also the ending is complete BS

as a pro, love some of these actors and especially enjoyed the music pairings--the scene where colin's character is walking towards a potential dance partner in order to ask her made me laugh quite a bit

 

[March of the Crabs]

Just saw it and really liked it. The sheer absurdity was hilarious to me. The tone is so straight that I can see some people hating this not realizing it's a very dark comedy.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Damn sorry. Its definitely a divisive one.

I think if the sense of humor doesn't jive with the viewer it must be unbearable to watch. Very oppressive movie at times.

I usually flip for dark comedies. But I didn't think this was particularly dark or particularly comedic, and almost all of the jokes that landed for me were stacked in the first half.

It was long, ponderous, and preposterously cruel. Just a blank, boring film with occasional spikes of gauche shock-value bullshit. Good actors wasted. Almost nothing interesting to look at. There's no "satire," nothing deserving of a deeper critique. Just an impossibly cynical slog that scorns the human experience of intimacy and the human experience of loneliness. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't know how you manage to make something that's simultaneously affectless and affected, but that's it's only achievement.

A two-hour juvenile sneer that feels twice as long.

 

[atr0cious]

didn't really care for dogtooth and didn't care for this much either. i laughed every so often but I think the movie's straight-laced dialogue & camerawork acted more as a disservice in the end. the

You should watch it again, as the second half is filled with scenes that only really make sense the second time around, especially in regards to the super sweet moment where he tells her what he's gonna do by saying their code out loud so she can understand. Or when they're sitting at the table and she asks if he wants to see her stomach, so sweet. The movie really pays off on rewatch, and the tone and character quirks really help hammer it home in the end.

There's no "satire," nothing deserving of a deeper critique. Just an impossibly cynical slog that scorns the human experience of intimacy and the human experience of loneliness. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The end sequence refutes this.

 

[Shake Appeal]

The end sequence refutes this.

Everything I've read from Lanthimos—and I read quite a bit, because I was confused as to why anyone thinks this movie is redeemable—suggests he thinks it is very clever to show how people rebelling against one absurd, cruel, self-imposed system of human intimacy end up in another system just as absurd and cruel. e.g., "We’re interested in the irony of someone who tries to escape a certain kind of system ending up having to become a part of another."

Wow, it's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.

For me, this movie insults and cheapens love on spurious, concocted grounds, and that pretty much made it feel like a masturbatory exercise for me. I pitied its creator for his worldview.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

One question:
In the opening scene, I gather this is just some woman enacting revenge on a person who had previously hurt her or is there meant to be a stronger connection to the rest of the story? At first I thought this was the heartless woman killing the donkey so that the other one would be alone, but it's not the same actress. So I took it just as a way to pique the viewer's interest and draw them into the film before establishing the rules of the world in a subsequent scene.

Some interesting things to note:
Although the heartless woman, and indeed society itself in the film, is disgusted by the concept of a relationship built upon a lie, I believe the man with the limp is meant to be portrayed as the most emotional of all. I think the scene where he explains how he got his limp is meant to showcase this fact.

By far the most popular animal people request to be transformed into is a dog, which is a universal symbol for companionship.

All women in the film conform to the classical western stereotype for what is considered to be "good looking". The men do not.

I'd love to read everyone else's thoughts and observations.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Do you think the animal conversion machine actually exists? What was up with the "real world" being so mundane? What happens at the end? These are a few shallow questions, hopefully they help you see the "depth" this film displayed.

In the context of the film I think the machine does exist. Do you think it was only meant as some kind deterrent? If so, what message is this meant to send in your opinion?
As far as the real world being mundane, just like the machine and the hotel, I accepted this as part of the film's premise and as part of the satire the writerdirector was trying to convey. The end is open to interpretation: perhaps he blinded himself and came back, perhaps he ran away, perhaps, as others have suggested (and I thought myself during my first viewing) he choked on the paper towel.

But really, it seems like there is a single answer to all the questions you raise that sums up my feelings: "What difference does it make?"
I'm not saying this to appear jaded, but rather to say that I don't see how answering any of those questions differently provides any further insight into the message this story was meant to convey. Hence I'm still not sure how much depth there is to it. I would, however, like to discuss it further in the hopes of uncovering something deeper, because this film feels like it should have a deeper message.

 

[Check Mark]

Watched this film on a plane ride, not knowing anything about it. Ended up really enjoying it and the ridiculousness of it. Rachel Weisz and Lea Seydoux too...

The dark tone of the movie just made scenes like

Spoiler

John C. Reilly vs Ben Whishaw

more hilarious to watch unfold.

Even the sequence

Spoiler

when he escapes from the Heartless Woman

, could have been done in a more thrilling way but instead looked so absurd hahaha.

By the way,

Spoiler

what animal do you think he turned her into?

 

[SwolBro]

Yeah, you got me, brah.

To call it one of the worst films you've ever seen just reeks of some one that doesn't watch many films besides hollywood blockbusters.

 

[Trigonometrize.]

Just saw it and it had some cool ideas. My only major problem was that it could've been trimmed down a bit as hearing scene after scene of monotone delievery got tiring by the end. The ending gives a lot to think about. Unfortunately it's one of those movies that gets labeled as pretentious for the mere act of trying to say something figuratively. If you didn't like it you didn't like it.

 

[atr0cious]

Everything I've read from Lanthimos—and I read quite a bit, because I was confused as to why anyone thinks this movie is redeemable—suggests he thinks it is very clever to show how people rebelling against one absurd, cruel, self-imposed system of human intimacy end up in another system just as absurd and cruel. e.g., "We’re interested in the irony of someone who tries to escape a certain kind of system ending up having to become a part of another."

Wow, it's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.

For me, this movie insults and cheapens love on spurious, concocted grounds, and that pretty much made it feel like a masturbatory exercise for me. I pitied its creator for his worldview.

Maybe my ignorance of the director keeps from looking for cynicism(though I will be watching dogtooth soon),but I didn't get that at all. And I don't see how it cheapens love when they lose their eye sight to obtain it. And I completely disagree that its about rebellion, for me its about true honest love. The last 10 minutes of the movie is him methodically preparing to give up his eye sight. This begins with him describing the moves he would make to tell her how he feels. They have broken conversations assuring each other that this is what he wants to do. The last scene is her offering body parts for him to look at for the final time.

Look at it another way, in comparison to the nose bleeding couple: They lie(he does) about their "perfect" relationship. When Collin Farrel arrives on the boat, its almost implied that the wife knows the man has been lying, but to continue being the perfect couple and matching in every way, they have solidified their bonds in alliance against those who would destroy it. Its why the daughter offers the knife, the children solve all problems, and now he must fight for her and them as a family.

Now compare that to Farrel and Weisz' relationship. They knowingly make the choice together to become the perfect couple because the outside world demands it. Farrel could easily move on and live his own life, which would be the "rebellious" thing to do, but he willingly gives up everything for her. That he blinds himself for her, with her in accordance is the sweetest thing he could do. I also think he does it because the end credits are beach sounds, and the movie establishes that animals never get put in their natural habitat. Also lobsters are blind.

In the context of the film I think the machine does exist. Do you think it was only meant as some kind deterrent? If so, what message is this meant to send in your opinion?
As far as the real world being mundane, just like the machine and the hotel, I accepted this as part of the film's premise and as part of the satire the writerdirector was trying to convey. The end is open to interpretation: perhaps he blinded himself and came back, perhaps he ran away, perhaps, as others have suggested (and I thought myself during my first viewing) he choked on the paper towel.

But really, it seems like there is a single answer to all the questions you raise that sums up my feelings: "What difference does it make?"
I'm not saying this to appear jaded, but rather to say that I don't see how answering any of those questions differently provides any further insight into the message this story was meant to convey. Hence I'm still not sure how much depth there is to it. I would, however, like to discuss it further in the hopes of uncovering something deeper, because this film feels like it should have a deeper message.

An entire movie built on the premise that you can change a human into an animal, and not only do they never show the process or the machine, when the main character uses it, John C Reilly can only utter his disgust at "what he did." I think the movie's view of the rest of the world as mundanity aside from whether or not you're in a relationship, to the effect that police force are patrolling for it, is something worth thinking and talking about.

It's worth pointing out that the master plan to disrupt the status quo was to introduce distrust, not just make up a lie, or kill, or steal, just leave them with the knowledge they don't truly love each other the way they think they do. It's also interesting the leader has a "perfect" family herself, and yet lies to them and actively works against the thing they enjoy.

I disagree with the sentiment of having a point to analyse art. Art is created for you to react and respond to, whether you do or not is up to you, but even some of the "worst" art has analytical value to be gleaned.

 

[RPS37]

I really liked it. Like 8.8/10. I even watched the extra making of featurette afterward. However, I think my parents kind of hated it. Though I did hear both of them laugh quite a bit.

 

[Cynosure]

By the way,

Spoiler

what animal do you think he turned her into?

Spoiler

a rabbit.

I want to post the exact long explanation. I'll post it as soon as I find it. itll blow your mind.

 

[Regiruler]

How is this movie as someone who has no perspective regarding relationships? The world seems interesting enough but I'm not sure if I would latch on to the main drive.

 

[IISANDERII]

This came to Netflix Canada and just watched it last night. I enjoyed it you try to figure out what the world is and the film slowly rolls it out. It was pretty funny and very dark too. I gave it 4 stars on my Netflix. It's very unique, so glad there are crazy people out there making stuff like this.

Edit: I've also just started watching Black Mirror and this seems like it could be an episode of it

 

[Caspel]

Loved it! More Colin Farrell, please.

 

[dcelw540]

I tried to like this movie but didn't get the humor? It just felt weird the acting was good but the whole premise and the people living in the forest was pretty dumb to me. I liked parts of it but overall it was not my type of movies I guess. 5/10

 

[KodaRuss]

I tried to like this movie but didn't get the humor? It just felt weird the acting was good but the whole premise and the people living in the forest was pretty dumb to me. I liked parts of it but overall it was not my type of movies I guess. 5/10

Same here, felt like all of the funny parts were in the trailers that I had already seen.

The movie was way too damn long as well, my wife and I barely finished it. I am usually pretty easy to please and there were times when I laughed but it was just overall not funny and just a slog to get through imo.

 

[Wensih]

Maybe my ignorance of the director keeps from looking for cynicism(though I will be watching dogtooth soon),but I didn't get that at all. And I don't see how it cheapens love when they lose their eye sight to obtain it. And I completely disagree that its about rebellion, for me its about true honest love. The last 10 minutes of the movie is him methodically preparing to give up his eye sight. This begins with him describing the moves he would make to tell her how he feels. They have broken conversations assuring each other that this is what he wants to do. The last scene is her offering body parts for him to look at for the final time.

Look at it another way, in comparison to the nose bleeding couple: They lie(he does) about their "perfect" relationship. When Collin Farrel arrives on the boat, its almost implied that the wife knows the man has been lying, but to continue being the perfect couple and matching in every way, they have solidified their bonds in alliance against those who would destroy it. Its why the daughter offers the knife, the children solve all problems, and now he must fight for her and them as a family.

Now compare that to Farrel and Weisz' relationship. They knowingly make the choice together to become the perfect couple because the outside world demands it. Farrel could easily move on and live his own life, which would be the "rebellious" thing to do, but he willingly gives up everything for her. That he blinds himself for her, with her in accordance is the sweetest thing he could do. I also think he does it because the end credits are beach sounds, and the movie establishes that animals never get put in their natural habitat. Also lobsters are blind.

An entire movie built on the premise that you can change a human into an animal, and not only do they never show the process or the machine, when the main character uses it, John C Reilly can only utter his disgust at "what he did." I think the movie's view of the rest of the world as mundanity aside from whether or not you're in a relationship, to the effect that police force are patrolling for it, is something worth thinking and talking about.

It's worth pointing out that the master plan to disrupt the status quo was to introduce distrust, not just make up a lie, or kill, or steal, just leave them with the knowledge they don't truly love each other the way they think they do. It's also interesting the leader has a "perfect" family herself, and yet lies to them and actively works against the thing they enjoy.

I disagree with the sentiment of having a point to analyse art. Art is created for you to react and respond to, whether you do or not is up to you, but even some of the "worst" art has analytical value to be gleaned.

I would just like to point out the end scene ends on suspense and hesitation, not the unification of a perfect couple which would be the antithesis of the movie.

 

[Auctopus]

I thought I was going to really like this film but in the end it didn't do a lot for me. I thought the cast ensemble was interesting but the setup/methodology of the hotel was a lot more interesting than what they did with it.

Wasn't in to the

Spoiler

Greek Tragedy

ending either.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I watched this without knowing it was supposed to be a comedy. It took me some time to realise it was not just really, really weird, although it still is. It is a wtf / 10 film. I wouldn't recommend it as a good film to watch, only as something unusual to watch.

 

[Darth Pinche]

Glad to hear that I was not alone in not liking this. I got slammed the last time I said that this movie didn't do it for me. It had lots of potential and I like dark comedy, but it just fell flat for me too.

 

[TissueBox]

I thought the movie was flippantly consistent, funny in that deadbeat cynical way. But there's a definite shallowness there, that comes from asking 'what was the point of all the sh*t they went through and when was it funny' that I think largely comes down to preference. The approach The Lobster takes borrows from aspects of absurdism (and, in turn, typical satire) and being a fan of such I was on board from the go-get; but it's carried much by its own reliance on ironic ooze, which for some may come at the cost of actual substance, actual emotional weight. Despite this, I enjoyed it for what it was quite a lot; a funny anti-something-something movie. But that's probably 'cause there's a deadbeat in me too, who's to know.

Misanthropy is probably not healthy, but in art it is just another tool. I think The Lobster doesn't over-indulge in it too much -- it's angry, beneath the flat face. It wanted to convey that anger through the resignation of black humor, through self-aware hypocrisy; combating the perceived cruelties of the world with the determination to be cruel as well. It is a failure in that regard. But it's a well-put-together one imo -- it's not stupid, not heart-less, just heartbroken -- and that's where it triumphs.

I will have to watch it a third time to determine if I won't suddenly resent it this next time around though, I last saw it a while ago, and in one of those moods, lol.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

"The Lobster" and "Swiss Army Man" were the two movies I saw last year that really stood out, they just had their own weird wavelengths and I walked out of both relishing the experience.