Recensioni degli utenti

Ben is a charming, witty go-getter fond of architecture, poetry and murder. A brutal serial killer, Ben is followed by a film crew who document his vicious spree of violence and barbarity. Initially they just shoot the proceedings, though as time goes by, the crew begin to take a more active hand, helping Ben torture and maim. Before long, the lines between subject and documenter are irredeemably obscured, with the crew fully in Ben's thrall. Their story escalates to a fever pitch of black comedy and savagery that will leave you thunderstruck in the audacious, wild and original 'Man Bites Dog.'

Written, produced, directed by and starring Benoît Poelvoorde, Rémy Belvaux and André Bonzel, 'Man Bites Dog' is sleek, highly entertaining and not for the faint of heart. Shot on a shoestring budget, the film impresses on every level. The narrative is unpredictable, sinister and full of pitch-black humour and raucous dialogue. So funny the film is, it plays at times like a Christopher Guest led reimagining of 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer,' and is just as strange, dark and comical as that sounds. It is a very clever, frantic and tongue-in-cheek mockumentary that contains some truly unforgettable, uncomfortable moments of violence.

'Man Bites Dog' opens with a frenzied, fiendish murder on a train and never lets up, containing some genuinely distressing sequences that will give one pause. The thesis the filmmakers are operating under seems to be that visual media- television and movies- corrupts and makes complicit its audience in whatever is occurring on screen. The crew following Ben succumb to his wiles and find themselves perverted by his depravity, as do we the viewing audience. We like Ben, despite his cruel and inhuman machinations, therefore are willing participants in his spree of turpitude. It's powerful cinema, with an interesting message at its core.

The bulk of the production was undertaken by Poelvoorde, Belvaux and Bonzel, and their efforts are impressive. A visually arresting watch, 'Man Bites Dog' is shot by Bonzel, and his cinematography is artful and of great clarity. Shot in black and white, the movie has a heady atmosphere that evokes film noir, and Bonzel's work with light and shadows produces some striking results. Not once do the budgetary constraints show through the visuals, and one will assuredly remember the images from 'Man Bites Dog' long after the credits have rolled.

The sound design is also impressive. For whatever reason, oftentimes student filmmakers do far more impactful and interesting work with sound than big studios and Hollywood heads. Think of 'Eraserhead' or 'Tetsuo: The Iron Man,' and how the cranking, wheezing worlds came alive through the sounds of the picture. 'Man Bites Dog' features similarly notable aural design and effects, which adds to the atmosphere and helps legitimize the world Ben traipses through on his intemperate journey. Additionally, the editing- done by Belvaux and Eric Dardill- is swift and intuitive, tying the whole film together nicely and establishing a steady pace, ever building in intensity towards the explosive finale.

'Man Bites Dog' stars Poelvoorde as Ben, serial killer and cultural commentator extraordinaire. His performance is fascinating, commanding and frighteningly hilarious. An arrogant, callous character, Ben is a startlingly realistic cinematic creation: a droll, murdering sociopath who loves the limelight, the sound of his own voice and dominating those around him. Poelvoorde's intense performance is incredible, he makes the character somehow likable and deplorable at the same time, whether waxing lyrical about architecture or discussing how best to drown a dwarf. The film justly kickstarted his career as an actor; as his is a supremely rare and versatile talent put on show to great effect in 'Man Bites Dog.' Though his supporting cast all perform admirably- Belvaux in particular- Poelvoorde towers above them; rendering further comment supererogatory.

'Man Bites Dog' is a brilliant, highly entertaining mockumentary that is original and affecting both. Featuring an unpredictable story, assured and noteworthy visuals and a spellbinding lead performance from Benoît Poelvoorde, the film is anything but ordinary. It is a highly charged, violent film that may not be for everyone, but for those who appreciate the dark and the abstract it's a must watch. OMD once released an album called 'Architecture & Morality'; with 'Man Bites Dog' Poelvoorde, Belvaux and Bonzel have created a fantastic film of architecture and immorality.

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.

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.

I remember renting 'Man Bites Dog' (or 'C'est Arrivé Près De Chez Vous' which is its original title) on a hunch in the mid-nineties, because I found the title and the cover on the VHS cassette intriguing. I had no idea for what kind of ride I was in. At first I was taken aback a bit, as I didn't expect the film to be in black and white. And then it simply blew me away. This mix of realism, pitch-black comedy and shocking (though not very graphic) violence had me on the edge of my seat throughout, and I simply hadn't seen anything like it before.

The direction and the realistic performances in 'Man Bites Dog' are simply outstanding; when I later watched it with a friend of mine he was visibly shaken at first, because he had thought he had watched a real documentary (which is obviously the film's intention). What must be mentioned above all else though, is the standout tour-de-force performance by the charismatic and frequently hilarious lead: Belgian actor Benoît Poelvoorde who also co-wrote and co-directed the film. He IS the film, and I have a hard time imagining the story working so well without his inspired, genius turn.

'Man Bites Dog' is perhaps one of the best and most original satires on sensationalist media since Sidney Lumet's seminal movie 'Network'; it's certainly the meanest (and not for the easily offended, mind you). In my opinion, it's a flat-out masterpiece. Highly recommended. 10 stars out of 10.

P.S. In case you don't know whether to trust this review or not, just check out the lists below, and you'll see exactly what kinds of films I like:

Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

Make no mistake this is a disturbing movie. And yea it's just violence with no reason behind it. But it's portraying being on a ride with a twisted, psychotic, sociopath who doesn't care. Kind of like how a war criminal would act. And then makes some off-color jokes about it while he's killing.

Notice the art snobs on here don't only attack the movie but they need to attack the viewer as well. The movie is mocking them and they can't take it. So they write a 4 paragraph review on how much the he or she hates it and how stupid and dumb a person must be if he likes it. It's not supposed to be taken seriously.

One of the nastiest and most notoriously evil dark comedies ever is actually filmed in Belgium. Belgium that is, not France like some people seem to think. It's (at least what I know of) the only Belgian film I've ever seen, but it's also just happens to be one of the best films I've seen from any country.

Benoît Poelvoorde is fantastic as the totally mad and nihilistic serial killer Ben, his mere presence makes this movie stand out. The shootings in black and white makes this movie feel like a real documentary. And the humor is darker than a black steer's tookus on a moonless prairie night. It's fantastically funny, if you can stomach it, that is.

Many scenes of grisly violence against kids, bystanders, elders and various others will probably disgust a whole lot of people, but if you can handle it then you've got yourself a film you'll remember for a long time.

I really wonder what happened to those who made this. They should have been stars by now. This probably just proves that life simply isn't fair.

Genius doesn't come along often. Do yourself a favour and watch this.

10/10

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).

Consider a scenario where Travis Bickle after gaining hero status at the end of 'Taxi Driver' embarks on a rampaging killing spree(as is very likely for his character), but this time a documentary crew follows him and his actions, and with this you have the thematic equivalent of the mockumentary 'Man Bites Dog'. 'Man Bites Dog' follows a violent serial killer as he casually commits one murder after another with horrific brutality.

This film is a brutal satire on how society and films from all around the world glamorise violence and hero-worship the vigilantes(which was also the point of the ending section of Taxi Driver). The way the documentary crew remain indifferent and downright casual about the murders until things start affecting them personally is a clear statement on the film viewers of that time and subsequent generations and their tendency to gravitate towards graphic and disturbing violence. Although the film has comedic sensibilities running through it, but it does not compromise when it comes to depiction of violence.There are some chilling moments in the film that underline this like the moment where two kids are scene playing with toy guns and shooting at each other and the it suddenly jump cuts to Ben actually shooting real people. There are other scenes where Ben tries to emulate in real life, murder scenes he has seen in films. This film is certainly not for everyone as it consistently flirts with the line dividing what is offensive and what's not and at times for some viewers it may seem to skew a little towards the offensive side. It does make you feel a bit contaminated by the nihilistic violence, a bit like 'Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer', but I think that was intentional on the part of the directorial team.

The tag line for 'Taxi Driver' was 'On every street in every city, there's a nobody who dreams of being a somebody.' This tag line is also very much fitting for 'Man Bites Dog'. The protagonist Ben isn't really plagued by loneliness like Travis was, but what he shares with Travis is an intense yearning for attention. It is made very clear in the film that Ben loves the attention that the documentary crew give him. So much so that when the crew try to turn down his invitation to a meal one evening citing plans that they made earlier, Ben gets antsy and feels offended. It is clear that like most serial killers and psychopaths, the roots of his deranged behaviour and monstrosity lies in his want to be seen and celebrated. He is always putting on an act and pretending to be this angelic, sharp individual with high intellect who just happens to be a serial killer. This pretension stands out as there comes certain scenes later in the film where Ben is forced to be his genuine actual self which is very different from the character he is pretending to be in the initial part of the film. Travis' story had the inescapable backdrop of post-Vietnam and post-Watergate America, I don't have enough knowledge to know whether the directorial team is making a statement about a state of disillusionment existing in Belgium at the time of its release but it very well could be the case. Another film that comes to mind is 'A Clockwork Orange'. Just like Kubrick's film, 'Man Bites Dog' challenges us by making us follow a truly despicable, deplorable and loathsome character. However just like Alex, Ben also pays big time for his actions.

Textually and technically, this film reminded me a lot of the French New Wave from the late 50s and 60s. There is a lot of Godard-esque jump cutting, preponderance of long unbroken takes as is expected from a pseudo documentary,etc. There is a beautiful directorial moment of subtle imagery towards the end of the film where just before a shocking revelation, there is a fleeting moment where we see a mirror in front of Ben with his reflection on it signifying that he is about to see the monstrosity of his own work reflected back at him, he is about to get a dose of his own medicine and it will be painful. The directorial team does very well to juggle and balance the darkly comedic elements of the film along with the graphic and gruesome violence.

The acting is good and believable from everyone, but certainly Benoît Poelvoorde deserves a special mention who drives the film forward and gives a layered performance. He plays a guy pretending to be a bad- ass, he doesn't go over-the-top, but manages to still capture a manic psychopathic demeanour in every scene. He also shines in the more quiet, subtler moments when the character suffers loss and regret.

'Man Bites Dog' is the darkest that a black comedy can get. It is challenging, shocking, disturbing and maybe perceived by some to be at times offensive. But I think there is a justification for the shock value that the film makes use of. The film has something to say about society, cinema and evil in general. If you can sit through a few moments of disturbing imagery, I will recommend this film to you ever so strongly.

What makes this movie so interesting is not so much the dark and raw atmosphere. It's not the fact that it's gruesome and disgusting. It's that is brought in such a normal realistic way that one actually believes that this could be a normal documentary. It's a beautiful fake-doc that takes an absurd topic and takes it to an extreme level. At a certain point one asks himself: where can it lead from here? What could possibly be a satisfying ending to a story like this. The movie succeeds in bringing this satisfaction fully, and the viewers are left with good discussion material. What if this were true? What if I would take my camera and make a documentary about a murderer?

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.

This movie is dissection of the bloodthirsty media and is cynical and funny, harsh yet charming. Just like the main protagonist, who happily goes killing around as his modus operandi is documented by overenthusiastic journalistic crew. It is satire at its best.

A film crew is making a documentary about Ben, following him around, interviewing him, filming him at work. His job: serial killer. Over time, however, rather than remaining observers of Ben's life and activities the film crew become participants in them.

Absurd, but in a good way. The idea of a serial killer being treated like an everyday person and a documentary being made on his life, and the film crew just watching while he does what he does, and then even helping him in his endeavours, is preposterous. But it works.

Darkly funny but all told in a straight-faced, matter-of-fact sort of way by writer-director-actors Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît Poelvoorde. The film does rely on suspension of disbelief but get past that and it's a hilarious, dramatic, action-packed ride.

A camera crew follows serial killer Ben as he kills and steals. He pontificates on life and the world. He likes to steal from old people. As the filming continues, the crew gets pulled further and further into Ben's world of crime.

The premise of a film crew following a serial killer is really edgy. The violence is brutal. The only drawback is the film crew. I don't find them realistic. The movie opens with Ben killing. The film crew should be going to cops unless they're also psychopathic killers. I need to get a sense of the camera crew from the start. Their devolution needs to be better mapped out. The whole crew needs to be as important as Ben in terms of character expositions. Although I can understand the attraction of concentrating on the serial killer. When the crew switches side, I don't feel it like it needs to be. Nevertheless, this is an interesting film that should be seen.

Cinema! The documentary of a sadistic killer trying out new methods, sharing his secrets with the camera crew and then going to celebrate by the seaside with a plate mussels. Our killer's absolute disregard for human life, other than a thick crew of visually stunning characters, is nothing short of a masterpiece. Just be warned that it is the most violent movies of all time and you will be fine. You won't believe our killers reaction when you find out that someone had the gall to attempt a similar project. "First you need a tear, just a tear of gin......and then a river of tonic". The mock camera crew show a great deal of patience putting up with this guy, but they probably hadn't figured on what they were getting themselves into.

Man Bites Dog

The problem with video recording your murders in the 1990s was no online ad revenue.

So it's hard to understand why the serial killer in this black comedy would do it.

With a film crew in tow, charismatic sociopath Ben (Benoît Poelvoorde) goes about his day-to- day, detailing in-depth for the cameras the finer points of slaying strangers. He demonstrates his barbaric methods as well.

While they are passive observers at first, the film crew soon help Ben restrain and dispose of his random victims. As such, they become collateral damage when someone target's Ben for revenge.

A pioneer of the found footage sub-genre, this 1992 satire from Belgium takes the mockumentary style in a very dark direction. By blending off-kilter comedy with sadistic cruelty, this NC-17 rated cult hit is jarring in ways few horror movies are.

Incidentally, taping your carnage will show jurors just how hot you use to look.

Green Light

vidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

Man Bites Dog would have to fall under the category of the antithesis of Hollywood movies.

If you can purge the shocking undiluted violence and put enough comfortable distance between yourself and the show then viewing the film with a critical eye isn't hard at all.

That is, if you can do it.

Because Man Bites Dog is as harsh as reality comes, displaying the warped sense of what counts for normalcy for different people and weaving in underlying messages of where we are heading with the genre of reality TV.

The black and white footage, perhaps done to spare us gruesome details of massacre, effective does the complete opposite. Whatever immunity you have towards those Hollywood slash-fics will be speedily thrown out of the window within the first 10 minutes of the show.

It's not glamourised and in doing so, you actually start to believe what lengths people are capable of in the "Real" world.

So, if you look at it from the point of view that it bulldozes the message across... 'don't get in too deep before you start to realise you can't get out'... then with all surety, it is great enough a movie to shock viewers right into common sense.

However, it's not something I would recommend for anything beyond critique circles or research unless you find scrubbing your brain out with carbolic soap as a fun post-movie experience.

It seems that most people commenting this movie see it as a comedy. I have to admit, when I first saw it (about ten years ago), My friends and I had the same impression. However, after revisiting the picture, I don't think as it as a comedy at all. And I don't actually believe, the creators intended it to be a comedy, either.

True, quite some dialogs and scenes are humorous (mostly black, naturally) but that is not the nature of the film. Instead, I agree with the commentators who stated that it is about the viewer itself: While many people laugh at the blatant humor, the movie constantly asks the viewer what actually is funny. In the end, there is not much comedy left (not more than in Dramas with witty dialogs that are sometimes humorous).

This Movie messes with the viewers brain in a very subtle way. It's a very interesting piece of work and the best (uhm, yes, and only) Belgian movie that I know of. Those, who can cope with outrageous violence shown without censorship and appreciate independent movies definitely should watch this. Those who are seeking a comedy definitely should avoid this -- it is none.

One thing I really resent about this noxious film is the element of justification it purports to carry which is little more than intellectual blackmail, and which some commentators have alluded to. Because I paid money to see this film, (solely because of the reviews it got), I resent then the implication that by doing so I am either a voyeur or a fellow-traveller in the violence and cruelty depicted. Had I got up and walked out, no doubt I'd have been called a "prude" or my exit regarded as "moral panic", and, by not having seen the whole film to the end it would be argued (with reason) that I would therefore be unqualified to comment... the no-win situation so beloved of those who have an answer for everything! Certainly, there is no question of banning this film for adults, in fact it is a useful artifact to show just how desensitized and decadent Western culture has become in part. And yet, that same society (in Britain at least) bans the depiction on television of abortion procedures, and carefully filters out graphic scenes of real carnage. But when it is claimed to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, then I have to dissent from the mainstream opinion regarding this movie, and take issue with such arrogrance. What is "funny" about seeing a child murdered, or a woman raped and then disembowelled? Isn't this reaction precisely the mind-set that perpetrates so many war time atrocities? That rather than allow ourselves to be swamped with revulsion and self-loathing at our propensity for barbarism, we have to transmogrify it into some sort of "giggle" - a lark, a bit of fun, or, god help us, sport? If this odious and squalid little piece of artistic pretension HADN'T revolted and nauseated me, then I'd be truly worried. As it is, it has a kind of schoolboyish feverishness about it, like trying to see who can next come up with the most shocking anecdote, or see who can pee the highest up the wall. Crude and cruel, it at least parades its scabs with some sort of attitude. And possibly that's what worries me most. However, just to try and be truly balanced, maybe, just maybe, the film-makers were in fact creating a double bluff just to test and examine how far a parade of unremittingly cruel images might find intellectual champions in today's society! Remember, the "film as auteur" concept originated as a scam!