Ocurrió cerca de su casa

I'd have to rank this with "Henry, Portrait Of A Serial Killer" as one of the sickest and disturbing films I've ever seen. But like "Henry," it's fascinating.....and certainly different.

It is a fake (thank goodness!) documentary with sleazy cameramen following around a serial killer as the latter murders a bunch of people while spouting philosophy between killings. Some of the demented killer's words are downright funny because of their absurdity. Perhaps that is why this is labeled by some as a black comedy, but this is so dark it is difficult for me to rate this as a comedy, even though it's there.

Most of the killings are not gruesome but there are a few that qualify for that status. They don't dwell on the blood but they don't spare anything in here, either. This film is so strange, so bizarre that one has to see it believe it. That is not just a cliché. You have not seen a film like this: I guarantee it.

A couple of Belgians - Benoit Poelvoorde, Remy Belvaux and Andre Bonzel - did almost all the work on this movie: writing, directing, editing and acting. They were new to the business, had little money and wanted to make a film with those limited resources....and they succeeded very well.

A film crew documents the activities of psychopathic professional killer Benoit (Benoît Poelvoorde).

Man Bites Dog is, to begin with, a pitch black comedy in which the absurdity of a documentary team recording a killer at work provides the uncomfortable humour. Benoit's actions are reprehensible, but too ridiculous not to find amusing, the killer starting the month by killing a postman, then preying on gullible OAPs from whom he steals their life savings (always creative in his work, Benoit literally scares one old dear to death). Benoit talks to the camera about his work, discussing his methods and techniques, whilst lapsing into moments of poetry and artistic reflection.

This somewhat whimsical approach doesn't prepare the viewer for the more harrowing content in the latter half of the movie, which provides an emotional punch that really drives home the horror of its subject's lifestyle. When Benoit kills a family, including a young boy, the grim reality hits home, and is compounded by the subsequent gruelling gang rape, murder and mutilation of a woman, the crew of the documentary not just recording the act but participating in it as well. This shift in tone from black comedy to genuinely disturbing shockumentary continues as Benoit displays his dangerous unpredictability by suddenly executing a guest at his dinner table. The end of the film sees the psychopath's loved ones brutally murdered by his rivals, who then turn their attention to Benoit and his film crew.

Admittedly, at times, Man Bites Dog can be an overly talky affair, both ponderous and a tad pretentious (presumably deliberately so), but the more shocking scenes guarantee that the film will stick with you long after the credits have rolled.

7/10. For fans of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Natural Born Killers and The Blair Witch Project (which surely 'borrowed' its ending from Man Bites Dog).

This movie is a piece of art: shocking and disturbing, while at the same time funny as hell in a raw "should-I-be-laughing-or-should-I-be-ashamed" kind of way.

It gives an insight in the very realistically portrayed life of Ben, a serial killer with an impressionable charisma.

Most people who commented on this film either love it or hate it. The division seems mostly geographical though: most Americans can't seem to understand the tongue-in- cheekness of this movie.

Probably it has to do with the fake-documentary nature of the movie, which is clearly western-european. Anyone who has ever seen American documentaries knows they have a different pace and way of treating images. Those who are used to belgian/french/ dutch/german documentaries will recognise the style of the so-called "intimate" documentaries.

The pivotal point is the moment a relationship develops "beyond" the documentary relationship of the filmmakers and their subject (they take Ben's money to finish the movie).

When watching this movie, try to imagine that this *could* be a real movie:

documentaries about terrorists, drugdealers, and even mercenaries (the closest thing to an actual serial killer) have been made, and some of them were very close to their subject.

It is *not* a "black comedy" in the classical sense of the word; more like a "Clockwork Orange" for the nineties. Where "A Clockwork Orange" bathed in the design of the seventies, this movie bathes in the "larger-than-life" invasiveness of modern-day reality-tv-style television. Anyone who has seen shows like "cops" or "Big Brother" will know what I'm talking about. It asks the big documentary question: in how far does the observed change the observer? It makes a statement, not about violence, but about the observer of violence. The way it is portrayed shows the art of the (very low-budget) crew: it grips your guts without fancy effects or gory protrayal of gore: it shows fear, despair and psychological emptyness, by showing emotions! This should be recommended viewing (and debating) to anyone making documentary films.

That's the one I was looking for...

Beautifully shot in black and white, this piece of art about a killer followed by a film crew is technically incredible.Camera movements or sound effects are among the most innovative I have ever seen. Besides, the dialogues are so funny...

We watch a lot of people being shot and this might shock a lot of people, but if the viewers bear in mind the real purpose of this "massacre" (to denounce the violence rather than glorify it), this movie is really funny.

I surprised myself talking with a Belgium accent and learning by heart the dialogues in order to make people laugh. It lasted 3 years...

This is definitely a masterpiece that I would not recommend to everybody, especially because of its visual violence, but filmgoers who would like to see something different should definitely check this one.

I consider it a brilliant film, but also very very disturbing. I'd sooner warn people about it than recommend it, even though it's an amazing achievement. So, for what it's worth, here's my viewing experience:

I heard about this film and was immediately hooked on the absurd idea of a serial killer, on the loose, as a willing documentary subject. I also heard that it was pitch-black comedy, and a commentary on violence, society, media, etc. -- blurring the lines between observing and becoming an accomplice and whatnot.

Well, in the first two acts it certainly delivers on the absurdity and the black comedy. Both Ben and the filmmakers are as matter-of-fact about his prolific killing as if it were a documentary about urban architecture, and even in the middle of his murderous acts he remains an engaging conversationalist with all sorts of attributes our culture values: extroversion, confidence, charm, a sense of humor, and fairly informed views on diverse subjects. The juxtapositions are disturbingly hilarious. He laments that African immigrants like the one he just shot don't have equal opportunities in this racist society, or that the color and layout of a certain housing project encourages violence and other social evils. He kills an entire family in their home, then reflects on the waste of human life and how there "should be a law" against that sort of thing. He explains a lot of aspects of his trade (like how to dispose of bodies and which victims are most likely to carry money), but leaves other elements in the dark. He first seems like a murderous variety of the common robber, but then plenty of killings seem to have no material motive at all, while others are clashes with rival killers (the absurdity reaches meta-levels at some points).

I was shocked by the violence and I was also laughing, and I was feeling uneasy about that.

Many reviews talk about how the documentary crew moves from "observers" to "accomplices", but any court of law would already consider them "accomplices" within one minute of the film starting, so that development didn't register so much to me. Sure they started taking a more active part in the carnage, but this wasn't something I considered an unexpected development.

What did register to me was the shift somewhere in the third act. Suddenly I was no longer watching a dark comedy. The violence escalates to a nasty scene that I couldn't even watch, and that left me disturbed and depressed for days. It's like the movie finally decided to show me what I was looking at and say, "well, are you still laughing? Are you?" And I realized: what was there about Ben that was engaging? Even his charming ways among his friends and family were just socially acceptable methods of getting his way and remaining the center of attention, just like killing people and starring in documentaries.

So among the unexpected things I found in this film was a chillingly believable portrait of a textbook sociopath. (The scary thing is that I know someone in my neighborhood who fits that profile as well.)

The film is brilliant and disturbing. Proceed at your own risk.