Mise à mort du cerf sacré

Who gives green light to projects like these?

I would love to spoil this movie, but I did not find anything that could be spoiled, since nothing interesting happens.

Colin Farrel wears a beard that can almost be smelled, hospital corridors, Nicole Kidman plays dead, naked, more hospital corridors, a young man eating noodles like a monkey, even more hospital corridors, a cameo by Alicia Silverstone, a couple of shots in a restaurant, two children crawling, etc ...

Is it too much to ask for a minimally coherent story?

They have you terrified at what was going to come out of someones mouth in just about every scene. I dont know if I liked it or hated it. I appreciated they made Me squirm for a couple hours. But now I think I need to wash it down with like, i dont know, a disney movie lol or something. The people, every last one of them are seriously messed up in the head. Brace yourself to be pushed in the incredibly uncomfortable zone. Should have a warning, "written by some one with psycological issues"

This poorly written and badly directed movie from Oscar nominee (for "The Favourite") Yorgos Lanthimos is yet another Emperor's New Clothes example of bad contemporary cinema. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

As often is the case during a bad movie, my mind started to wander and I thought about Ed Norton's breakthrough film "Primal Fear", a suspense thriller featuring a memorable war of wills with Richard Gere. In "Deer" we have Barry Keoghan reminding me of Norton, but giving a rote, clumsy performance. For director Yorgos, niceties like believable acting, believable characters and attempts to help the viewer suspend disbelief are way too cornball for him to attempt, instead substituting his tiresome Theater of the Absurd antics.

In contemporary porn, wedded to internet streaming as the mode of delivery, a set-up for a scene/video lasts a minute or two to establish some dumb stag movie type premise, and then it's on to the races for a half hour or so of nonstop explict sex action. In "Deer" Yorgos takes an hour, fully half of the movie to shaggy-dog build up his absurd supernatural premise, during which the cast walks through their roles like zombies.

Nonsensical second half, with its absurd violence and ridiculous sexual innuendo (Nicole Kidman's off-screen hand-job for example) traps the characters with zero degrees of freedom, making their actions subject to "fate" or some pretentious appeal to Euripedes and Greek myth. It's not interesting watching them go through the motions and none of the scenes are credible. Under the guise of avant-garde filmmaking, we get hackwork. Oh, for a great filmmaker like a Sidney Lumet (with scores of great movies about conflict and war of wills, my favorite perhaps not the Pacino classics but Sean Connery in "The Offence"), not the trendy hacks of today's cinema.

Yes, this movie is weird, and it's entirely intentional.

Yorgos Lanthimos is an interesting Greek director who's been making English language films for a few years. The Lobster is so dry and oddball that I ended up kind of loving it. The Favourite I ended up loving because it was able to most effectively balance its weirdness with its characters (perhaps because he didn't actually write this script as opposed to everything else he's directed).

The Killing of A Sacred Deer is the movie he made in between the two listed above, and I think it might be the weakest of the three. Good instead of very good, that is.

So, let me talk about the weirdness. Everything about this movie feels stilted and mannered. It's off putting, especially at the beginning when you're trying to figure out what on earth the movie actually is. As the story progresses, though, it's easy to see the nefarious undercurrents running through every scene. We spend the first half of the movie trying to figure out where this unease originates from, and the fact that everyone is delivering unnatural dialogue unnaturally heightens the feeling.

I've seen so many complaints of unnatural dialogue over the years. The one example strongest in my mind is around the movie Juno. The complaints of the mannered way in which characters spoke seemed to be a mask for complaints about the rest of the movie that people couldn't figure out how to express, so they picked on the dialogue. I'm not saying that criticism of such writing is invalid or always misdirected, but that did seem to be the trend I noticed and continue to notice in such criticisms. Just because dialogue isn't reflective of how people actually speak (I like to think of Mamet), that doesn't mean that the dialogue is a failure. Oftentimes, it's that way for a reason.

Anyway, back to the movie. The sense of unease that permeates the film is great, and I kind of loved the film for about the first three-quarters. However, once the plot began to unravel and resolve, I felt like the movie lost some of its edge. When the main character is presented with his great moral choice (and his blackly comedic method for resolving it), I felt more removed from the choice than I should have. The build up is what works best in this movie, while the resolution just simply doesn't gel as well.

Still, the movie's an odd but entertaining little thriller.

Eh it wasn't horrible, but I wouldn't watch it again. It was very disturbing, unsettling and weird. The film had me guessing at every sec. Perhaps those are elements of a good film? I give it thumbs up for being able to reach within and for making me feel that, but its not the experience I was looking for. Entertaining film but in a way most people might not enjoy.