User reviews

Tonight 'Sombre' premiered in the Netherlands. Present in the audience was the director of Sombre, mr. Philippe Grandrieux. He is known mostly as a maker of documentaries and videos, and it shows in Sombre, his first movie. Shaking camera's (he told the audience he shot most of the footage with a 35mm camera (about 24 kilo's heavy, that's gotta hurt at the end of the day), extreme close-ups and experiments with dark and light. It absolutely complements the story.

About the story. It tells the story of Jean (Marc Barbé), a man that has many sexual encounters with women, but ends up killing them. Why, we do not know. I think he tries to love women, but at the end his lust takes over and controls him. After a couple encounters he meets a woman played by Elina Lowensohn. Apparantly she's something else. She also has a history she's not completely happy with (why we don't know) and she joins Jean with her sister. It doesn't take long before Jean tries to rape and kill the sisters. They escape. But apparently she is somehow touched by Jean, a touch she can't forget (a romantic vision about love, says Grandrieux). She goes back to him. They have sex but at the end Jean drives her away. He can't be with her, because for the first (in the movie) time he experiences love, but he still can't control his lust and she can't be with him because she might end up being dead. Oh bitter irony...The movie ends with spectators of the Tour de France, a metaphor for reality watching this morbid fairy tale. And it is a bit of a fairy tale. Jean is a puppet player. He does a show in front of crowd of children (one of the best scenes in the film). He plays the wolf, the Beast! Eline plays the Beauty ( at the end of the film, I have my doubts about that, but anyway...).

It's a difficult movie! Grandrieux tells us that one of his main influences is the silent movie. Silent movies have spots on the film, the cuts are clearly visible, it's rough, 'it stays in the ears, even when you can't hear the sound'. And Sombre is rough and dirty. In some scenes you can almost touch objects, for example hair or a woman's thy. Other scenes are very serene and still, but you still feel the objects. Grandrieux tells us that he want to make the audience edit the movie realtime. And that was exactly what I did. You need some imagination with this picture, you have to fill in the blanks, because not much information and dialogue is given to you. What Grandriex achieves with this, is a connection between the audience and the film. 'Edit the movie the same time you are watching it'. Man, you gotta love that one.

Still, I would liked to have some more info on the characters and their history. I liked to know what makes them do the things they do. Now they are just doing them. And with almost no moral in it. There are some scenes where the theme hope is explored, but you got to dig deep. That results in dividing the audience in two teams. You either like it or you hate it. One more thing, the music. The music by Alan Vega is excellent.

See this movie, make your own story of it and make your own conclusions. Sombre is good material for the eyes and ears and the mind. Phillipe Grandrieux is a kind man who tought that the only way he could express his feelings with this theme, was by film. I rate it 7 out of 10.

You have movies that are dark because of its style and tone and then there also are movies that are just dark due to a lack of light. And this movie decided so simply use no lights at all, even while the movie is mostly taking place during the nighttime, which causes most of the movie to be just too dark for its own good.

It would had been nice to see more of what was going on at times. I just really couldn't always tell what was happening and you might call it an artistic choice, or something along those lines but I call it cheap and ridicules. I mean it's a movie! You are supposed to be able to tell what is going on, by using your eyes.

This all really prevented me from ever getting into this movie. But besides all of that, I don't think that this movie would had intrigued me any better if it got shot with more light. The story is just too simplistic for that and it isn't really following a main plot to begin with.

Sure, I get it. This is supposed to be a movie that puts us into the mind of serial killer but it doesn't really ever do this in a very engaging way. The main character, besides being a killer, is also a rapist. This makes him even less sympathetic and even makes you more repulsed toward him and the entire movie in general, since there is a whole lot of hard, loveless, sex going on in this movie. Not that I ever was able to see much of it tough.

The movie just never got interesting for me and it failed to put me into the mind of a serial killer. There are numerous movies out there that did a far better job, with a similar sort of premise and setup. Movies like "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" or "Schramm" for example. Or even some cheap TV movies or television series episodes. In other words; it was not so much its concept but more its execution, that was wrong with this movie.

It's a movie that picks a more stylized approach to things and almost wants to be seen and taken as an artistic movie. But really, the movie just isn't being deep and engaging enough for that. It instead is a very distant movie, that doesn't delves into anything.

It's not a horrible movie, or one that I hated seeing (if I ever could see anything that is) but it just is one that fails at ever becoming interesting or engaging enough to watch.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Nauseating it is but, genuinely striking film making at work, both disorientating and disturbing in equal measure. If nothing else Grandrieux like Von Treir's "Antichrist" raises the bar for horror films here, but doesn't rely on "gore" and shock the way VT did, instead generating fear from a soundtrack of guttural human cries, moans, noises, and silences, and bringing us unbearably close to characters and sensations we desperately and instinctively want to avoid.

I still think the combination of fairy tale logic into such a brutal close focus doesn't gel as much as Grandieux believes it does, but there is something to be said for the notion that complete sentimentality and utter depravity are closer than they appear. I felt like an insect watching this movie, pinned to a wall of sounds and images. Not a good feeling, but horror films are not supposed to create good feelings are they. What's most horrifying about this film is it's lack of any moral aim, for all there terrors horror films do usually show the triumph of a "final girl" or the humanity of a monster, but like "The Descent" Grandrieux's universe is an unstable chaos of actions, desires, and terrors, but more so because even the logical rules of cause and effect, are no good here (like Funny Games' remote control scene but stronger and stranger), in one scene Claire and Christine escape Jean, only to have him magically appear in front of their car. Next cut he has them in his hotel, seemingly hypnotized as he for lack of a better word...sniffs their fear.

What's so violating about a scene like this is not the violation that goes on within it, but the breaking of narrative rules that we depend on in a film like this, for respite, the chance to escape to breath. Sombre is suffocating, and makes even "love" itself, normally a redeeming force, a horror to behold.

My first impression of Claire's attraction to Jean was echoing the Joe Jackson's "Is She Really Going Out With Him?". I felt not the usual jealously one feels when the object of your affection is publicly affectionate to the worst possible kind of person (or a decent person who is transformed into a monstrous caricature through sheer force of jealously alone), but one of panic. She does not know what she is getting into but we (the audience) do, having witnessed albeit elliptically at times Jeans earlier crimes. Eventually she does know who and what Jean is after he attacks her sister, but her attraction seems to intensify as our repulsion grows, and at first I felt this as a failure of understanding character development (no rational human being would willingly go back to THAT). But this was a failure more on my part than the films.

I was expecting realism, when right from the beginning the film announces itself as not existing in a stable mental landscape of coherent naturalism. Our first images are a boy blindfolded in a field feeling his way in the air, then abruptly the sounds of children laughing like hyenas as they watch a Punch And Judy show.The hand-held camera at times jostles around with Jean's or a detached third party pov and at others holds itself sustaining agonizing close ups, all to create it's own kind of rationality(something after watching more Guy Maddin and Mark Rappaport I find a little easier to understand or at least accept).

Claire and Jean's relationship is non-existent guided by the films only symbolic logic(chance or reason/hope), a prop like the puppets in Punch And Judy, but where Mister Punch, would kill his wife, his family, his jailers, and in some versions even Death and The Devil himself, and do so with a smile, Jean wrestles with his demons which are indistinguishable from his desires, and suffers for them. The film's final shots of Jean in the woods recall Lon Chaney Jr's. performance as "The Wolfman"(1941), and all the tragedy, doom, and masculine anxiety there in. In the days of 'Dexter" where serial killers can be heroes too, were all aware that wolves can wear human skin, and men don't need to transform into monsters to make beasts of themselves.

In Fellini's "La Strada" where a lovely clownish child-woman is hopelessly and helplessly in love with a brutish strong man who rapes, torments, and abandons her, we are forced to see "love" as a beastly thing which traps our heroin from the rational action of escape. But it's this break with realism and into the metaphorical which freed Fellini from the other Italian filmmakers of the day and allowed him to progress into his trademark oneiric style, and it's also what gives "La Strada" it's emotional impact, which has to be weighed symbolically not literally. "Sombre" in many ways follows suit, but with more neo-Gothic, and new french extremist aesthetics.

"Sombre" is a difficult film, one which even the most willing to attempt to understand it, will not enjoy the first, second, or maybe any times watching it. I can't say I enjoyed it. I'm not gonna put this on during rainy day like "Slim Sussie" or "Monster Squad", but if I had a friend over who told me they were in the mood for a horror movie, something actually scary (a rarity) I would suggest this.

"...if my eyes don't deceive me, There's something going wrong around here..." -Joe Jackson

When I read the plot of this movie, I was really interested in watching it, since I really like French movies. They are not shy in themes like sex, religion, violence, horror, blood, etc. and although the idea of this movie had a lot of potential, for me it was a waste of time. I liked the beginning, but after that, things got from bad to worse. I understand that it is a low budget movie, but that doesn't justify that the action happens so slow, that the photography is extremely dark and won't allow you to catch any details, that there are a lot of shots that work for nothing on the movie, like water on a lake (and since the photography is so dark, it is not even worth a landscape shot), or close ups and long dialogs with characters that are not important in the movie, same as lack of dialogs with characters that are worth knowing more, a camera that was by shoulder almost all the time (that makes the movie awfully tired to watch) and horrible audio, that makes steps on little rocks and water sounds really annoying. The acting is OK and again, the story had a lot of potential, but to me this new wave of "experimental" or "art" film, where supposedly everything is called artistic to justify the lack of budget or the lack of imagination solving budget problems, is not really art movies. Shame, because sadly, for me, even if it sounds as blasphemy to the art movie lovers, a commercial director could have made of the script something agile, maybe scary, and shocking. Specially when the story had so much to offer. The points are because the story is cool (horribly handled), the beginning is nice, and the acting was good too. That's it.

in the usual sense of the term. This is a show for your senses : view of course, but also hear (the music of Alan Vega), smell or touch. The characters are filmed so close you can actually feel them in their gestures, you feel the love, you smell the fear. The picture is very dark, often fuzzy, never stable. It keeps on jumping from the lights of the car, to children's' screams, to womens' hips and hands on their throats. The film has raised a critical debate, some defining it as immoral and almost pornographic, the others considering it a pure chef-d'oeuvre. To my mind, it is both, and more than that. A real experience of cinema.

Jean (Marc Barbe) is driven by a desire to annihilate women. He strangles several in this protracted journey into his personal hell. Philippe Grandrieux, who made the boring "La Vie Nouvelle", manages to create a modestly concrete narrative here. It is an experimental piece. It may work for some. It didn't work for me. The director often shoots his subjects out of focus for reasons that remain unclear. The editing is adequate, the dialog is sketchy, the performances have a disconnected quality, though they don't lack realism. Ideas and themes are tossed around, but nothing is addressed directly. The sound mix is haunting and some of the driving sequences have the quality of a very bad dream. "Sombre" is a film of personal indulgences. I found the pace interminable and felt relieved that my suffering was over when the credits rolled.

Far from morality and any kind of convention, Sombre is a film that's all about seeing the world through the eyes of a killer. Sound and image on the hand of Grandrieux are combined into something that can only be described as a simulation of a panic attack.

The film is basically about a travelling puppeteer who kills women just before having sex them. Most of these women are prostitutes or strippers and it's natural that when he meets one whose concern is not to arouse him sexually, he finds himself unable to treat her the same. While that may seem contrived, Grandrieux is more concerned with the idea to travelling or moving than the actual story. The plot is there to follow all the changing locations and scenery and along with that the evolving emotions of the two main characters. It's actually real interesting to see that the film suggests that move is most likely the most natural human act, in the sense that being in motion is a type of struggle (interior or exterior) which is the only road to evolution and completion.

Nearly pointless but artistic exercise in bad filmmaking. Little character development, little plot, little dialog, and little suspense make for a boring movie. Though some of the ideas behind the story hold much potential, and some of the visuals are quite stunning in a freshmen experimental kind of way, the execution is amateurish and artistically over indulgent. Additionally, as incoherent as the plot is, it's also highly unrealistic (not in a good way) and fairly stupid. What's worse, you know how clever and arty the director thought he was being when he orchestrated this mess, even having the audacity to use 'Bela Lugosi's Dead' in one scene. Totally pretentious, totally ridiculous. Not recommended.

There are films that have a very difficult and challenging topic, that may also be very explicit. There are films that are shot in a way that makes them difficult to watch; very quick cuts; rapid camera movement; odd direction. There are films that have a compelling story-line.

This film is all of those.

To begin with, you may be forgiven for thinking that the cinematography methods used here are just to make it look 'arty'. However, as it progresses, I think the extremely dark, edgy, and confused imagery is a reflection of the state of Marc Barbé's mind; closed, confused, searching; helpless. The almost total lack of dialogue adds to the tension, as you are pulled along to an astonishing climax that will leave you thinking.

Whilst you are watching it not everything makes sense, however, in the days that follow, you will find yourself revisiting scenes in you head, wondering what they meant, working some of them out.

Sombre is a very difficult film to watch. It will affect you. You will think about it afterwards. To me, this is what films are all about. What you get out of this film is directly proportional to the amount you put in.

"Sombre" tells the story of serial killer Jean(Marc Barbe)who murders unfortunate roadside hookers.After erotic play he strangles them to death.Claire(Elina Lowensohn)is a virginal and introverted young woman.She is taken for a ride with him."Sombre" is a bleak serial killer movie filled with dark and brooding atmosphere.The dialogue is kept to a minimum and the killings are shot in the pitch-blackness.The cinematography is stunningly minimalist and disorienting with jerky camera movements and lots of extreme close-ups.The murder scenes leave a lot to the imagination.But being in the dark is far more terrifying than seeing everything.The characters are paper-thin,but the acting is believable and the score by French band Suicide is effective."Sombre" is a step into the gloom.8 out of 10.If you liked Gerald Kargl's "Angst" you can't miss "Sombre".

For me, this is a very powerful movie. I feel like I was not seeing a movie, but seeing something greater, stronger, and more powerful than "movie". I like every scene in this film. I feel I couldn't breathe when I saw it. It really fascinated and captivated me from the beginning until the end. The acting is also very good. Some actors in this film give the feeling like they were not acting, but "being" their characters. Elina Lowensohn is very great. Her eyes speak much louder and clearer than her words. The lighting, the movement of the camera, the raw feelings expressed from this movie made me feel as if I was not in a cinema, but in the story with all these characters. Hardly a movie can touch or move me this strongly! The joke about the stranded one is a good comment on human nature. The road scenes are hauntingly beautiful. Personally, I think every scene in this movie is indeed "emotionally" beautiful.

I saw this film at the Rotterdam Film Festival. The response to this film was divided. Some people applauded, others left the theater before the movie ended. It definitely was a film that hit me. The roughness of the cuts, sounds and lighting, in combination with very few dialogues and conversations, brings about an eerie atmosphere. This is not exactly the peaceful and jolly French countryside as shown in the average travel magazine one would take a glance at! Grandieux makes it look like a hideous, dark place, which (to my mind) suggest the acts of the main character are in some way influenced by that atmosphere. The strongest point of this movie, is the absence of any moral content. ´Why´ is not a question that Grandieux has tried to bring across to the viewers. It is precisely this lack of moral content that frightens some spectators. I can imagine that. However, they cannot deny that it is a very original film. In spite of the fact that the ´serial murderer theme´ can be found in many movies, the approach to this theme is completely different in this film. This is definitely a film which I will remember! I think people will either love it or hate it -I suppose the majority of people will be ´haters´-, actually I am surprised it made some Dutch cinemas. I recommend this film to anyone who likes original, non conventional movies. Give it a try. If you hate it: a VCR has an eject button.

A miracle that film like this has screened for 2 shows in Bangkok Film Festival. After watching this film nothing will be the same for me again. I'm a very lazy lazy type to write much of any thing and not a diary-guy type. However this one is an exception and made me write down the detailed film synopsis all night. I don't wish to say more apart from the fact that anybody who can catch this film in the theatre, please don't miss it. You have to watch it in the theatre- otherwise no video transfer could help you to see much of anything, because most of the time the film was (intentionally)underlit.Call it charming ,weird,poetic,mad ,unforgettable or pretentious, but can you really forget it ? Wherever you are Pierre Grandrieux , I won't miss your second film.

The only good element that stands out of this unviewable mess of images (I would never imagine calling this "thing" a movie) is first 2 minutes and music (at least in some parts). The rest is pretentious, crappy, pointless story in which the director tries to convince the audience of his originality using distorted, dialogue-less sequences, disturbing music, feeding on people's emotions. But what for? What is the message here? I've seen numerous artsy works, some of them good some quite bad, but nothing like "Sombre". AVOID AT ALL COSTS!! If you want to see a real shocker, reaching the depths of today's 'emotional' hell go for "Hundstage" (Dog Days) by Austrian Director Ulrich Seidl. Michael Haeneke and Werner Herzog praise this movie. And I fully agree with them. And remember do not waste your precious time for crap like SOMBRE. .F.

Not for all audiences, this movie would have pleased Pier Paolo Pasolini. It is bleak, disturbing, depressing, nasty, sad, gloomy, and most people won't like this one. Myself had some difficulties watching it entirely. I felt a bit sick, with a twisted taste in the mouth. But Marc Barbé is awesome, he is made for such roles. And in many movies, he is more or less like this one, a movie without many dialogues. And tha's even better, pictures speak for themselves. No useless bla bla bla.... It is rough, sad, I advise you not to show it to your parents in law nor your sweet heart. From time to time French movie industry can provide such features. A good thing for sure.