Grave

I heard the hype. How this film was "so horrific" that people left midway through the film after being so repulsed, they were physically ill. I went in with the - negative - expectation that this was going to be a gore fest. SPOILER: it's not. What we have here is a particularly grisly, but effective coming of age story, a genre the French have a penchant for. For a film about cannibalism, it's surprisingly subtle and is generally a slow burn that builds tension well. I found the performances uniformly strong, especially from Garance Millier. Her transformation from shy and socially awkward to animalistic and unhinged is a joy to watch. The atmosphere is well developed, especially those incredibly effective party scenes that perfectly capture what it's like at a wild college party. And I have to say, for such a twisted film, it's surprisingly sexy. Again, thank the French.

No, it's not for the faint of heart and yes, some of the imagery is quite brutal. It could've have fleshed out - heh - some of the relationships between certain characters better, but overall, I'd recommend this to people with open minds and strong stomachs.

Its easy to understand the pull of the full. You want to watch a film about a girl who becomes a cannibal.. the film is very well crafted and full of interesting images. The acting is very good and the camera work solid. But somewhere during the film you begin to question the purpose of this film- it is neither full-blown horror nor is it a deep character study of a girl who is grappling with the cannibal inside her. I say give me Hannibal Lector anytime!

This is a really interesting movie. We are introduced to a crazy college with bizarre students. I was impressed by the courage of this new director that show us disturbing sexual scenes without lose the focus of the message.

For me it's a valuable cinematic experience.

Is that really all it takes to deceive people into proclaiming it as the next Martyrs? The difference between these two movies is quite simple: Martyrs conveys its ideas through body horror, while Raw does so as the director's personal flavor of self-expression. Thus, unlike the former, the gore in Raw serves no profound purpose other than to make an otherwise generic genre film appear, on the surface, to be 'artsy.'

There isn't much going for it beyond that. If you're comfortable with blood, and eating flesh doesn't shock you, all that remains is an odd amount of nudity and sex. I, personally, have nothing against either, but it felt excessive nonetheless. The actors were passable, considering the material they had to work with, though nothing particularly noteworthy.

Overall, it feels like yet another example of a director who understands the principles of a good movie but lacks the skill or talent to realize them in her own work. She may think that using unusual colors in her coloring book makes it 'smart,' but the result is vulgar and grotesque. A truly talented filmmaker would've drawn outside the lines-rather than clowning with colors-while a more skillful one would've remained faithful to the form. She is neither.

4/10.

Influenced by David Cronenberg's early work (his so called body horror movies) but having all the features of the gory new french wave, Raw is a frequency of big, which get even bigger, shocks. This is a dark, cruel and disturbing horror film which gets even unbearable, but everything that take place work for the sake of a truly inspiring screenplay which provides amazingly well-written characters (one of the best character studies i have ever seen in horror film) and also runs as a clever allegory about the awaking of sexuality in a repressed environment. Direction and cinematography are really amazing likewise all the performances while the special effect and make up department made an astonishing work. Best french horror film since Martyrs. 8,5/10