AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
7,4/10
45 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Uma equipe de filmagem segue um ladrão implacável e assassino sem coração em sua rotina diária. Eles perdem sua objetividade e começam a ajudar.Uma equipe de filmagem segue um ladrão implacável e assassino sem coração em sua rotina diária. Eles perdem sua objetividade e começam a ajudar.Uma equipe de filmagem segue um ladrão implacável e assassino sem coração em sua rotina diária. Eles perdem sua objetividade e começam a ajudar.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 7 vitórias e 5 indicações no total
Jacqueline Poelvoorde-Pappaert
- Ben's Mother
- (as Jacqueline Poelvoorde Pappaert)
Édith Le Merdy
- Nurse
- (as Edith Lemerdy)
Avaliações em destaque
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/
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesDue to budget problems, it took the filmmakers over a year to complete the film. The company ran out of money several times and shooting had to be postponed until more money could be raised. A lot of friends and family of the filmmakers contributed to the film, both behind and in front of the cameras.
- Erros de gravaçãoAt the beginning, Benoît says that four times a child's body weight is needed to sink a dead child. However, at the bar where they drink Dead Baby Boys, Benoît asks René for the weight ratio needed to sink a child, to which René replies "Twice," and Benoit says, "Right!"
- Versões alternativasENDING SPOILERS - In some versions, the final shot, where everyone dies, lasts until the film runs out of the camera, which leaves a blank white screen after the film slips out of the camera's gate. In other versions, there is a dissolve between the the final shot and the blank screen at a much sooner point--and the viewer does not see the film slip out of the gate. The Criterion Collection edition released in 2002 has the latter version of the final shot.
- ConexõesFeatured in Zomergasten: Episode #12.2 (1999)
- Trilhas sonorasIce Ice Baby
Written by David Bowie, Earthquake (as Floyd Brown), John Deacon, Mario 'Chocolate' Johnson (as Mario Johnson), Brian May, Freddie Mercury, Roger Taylor & Vanilla Ice (as Robert Van Winkle)
Performed by Vanilla Ice
Courtesy of Capitol Records, LLC
Contains a sample of "Under Pressure"
Performed by Queen & David Bowie
Courtesy of Hollywood Records, Inc. for USA & Canada and Courtesy of Island Records
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Man Bites Dog?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- BEF 1.000.000 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 205.569
- Fim de semana de estreia nos EUA e Canadá
- US$ 15.176
- 18 de jan. de 1993
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 205.569
- Tempo de duração1 hora 35 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.66 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente