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"
Add a Review
-
SeanDTheFilmMaker16 October 2018
-
methodman-702524 November 2017Saying that the "The Killing of a Sacred Deer" is just a great psychological thriller is at least undermining...
This film is full of brilliant metaphors, but you have to know Greek mythology and history to understand some of them. When Agamemnonas wanted to go to Troy to fight with his ships, there was no wind and he could't get there. So he asked the Gods to throw some strong winds, but the Gods replied that he had to sacrifice something in order to get the winds he desired, so they told him he had to kill his daughter. Agamemnonas thought about it and he decided to kill his daughter, but when he was just about to kill her, the gods transformed her into a deer, so he killed a sacred deer.
That's where the title of the movie comes from and you can easily guess the reason..
So this film is about choices, sacrifices and revenge.But revenge from the Gods. When Martin can bring sickness and death to Steven's whole family, in fact martin is in the place of a God from Greek mythology. And his duty is to bring the justice and punish those who overestimated their powers and tried to play gods( Steven went to do a surgery drunk)
In addition to that, this great film of lanthimos, gives a harsh critic to the modern way of living in the western societies. Alienation, fake goals, fake relations and money that that bring comfort but not happiness.
In conclusion it's a great film that gives you much homework to think about when you get home after you watched it and surely much more than just a great psychological thriller that many people believe it to be.. -
Her-Excellency11 December 2021This is definitely not one for everyone and that's okay, sure, but to assign it a 1-star or 2-star rating as some have done, is just ridiculous, especially when the disconnect certainly is on the side of the viewer. In fact, those who deemed the acting 'bad' (one reviewer notes: "I thought the characters were robots") missed the entire point of the film.
While, admittedly, the acting from the girl who plays the daughter is flawed, both the acting from the rest of the cast and the way in which the story unfolds is purposefully meant to make you feel highly uncomfortable - and it succeeds.
From the very first scene, to where your mind goes in regard to the sexual nature of the relationships, to the inappropriate or generally eyebrow-raising topics of discussion between some of the characters, this film is MEANT to BE "creepy" and to make the viewer FEEL odd, off - and even dirty.
Much of the creepy-factor, if you will, comes PRECISELY FROM the amazing way in which most of these talented actors made these characters come across as disturbing, unappealing, ALMOST like most of us, ALMOST worth sympathizing with, but not quite. It would have lost much as a film of this nature had the acting been that of a normal or run-of-the-mill family). Again, EVERYTHING, from the topics of conversations, to their postures, to their almost detached delivery, was purposeful and meant to lend to the eeriness of the film and the discomfort of the viewer. THINK about it for a moment: have you ever watched Colin Farrell NOT deliver an enthusiastic, almost convivial performance? The departure from his easy affability in other roles, and almost apathetic delivery in The Killing of a Sacred Deer, was purposeful, and necessary to drive the uncomfortable narrative deep into the viewers minds. This is the very same reason (among many others) one particular character sings - eerily. The viewing experience had to be uncomfortable.
While The Killing of a Sacred Deer may not go down as a family favorite or as one we watch over and over, it is definitely engrossing for its running time and more importantly, it isn't the thousands of other films on hundreds of streaming sites with nothing to say for itself. In short, for those who specifically look for and enjoy films which are not the standard fare, this one is a should-watch.
7.6/8. -
TxMike20 September 2020I went into watching this with no background and it is strange from the start, the stilted dialog and unusual responses characters often give. The title threw me until I read later that one version of the Greek myth requires the killing of a sacred deer to get the gods to help.
I watched this until the end and was NOT satisfied with its conclusion. A teenager whose dad died on the operating table seems required to take revenge on the doctor's family and that means killing one of them, as they first become paralyzed then their eyes bleed. The only way this could have any reality in today's world is if the teenager has some sort of supernatural powers. And in fact there is a scene where the doctor's wife (Kidman) kisses the bloody feet of the tied-up teenager in their basement, presumably to suggest the biblical story of Jesus' feet being washed by a prostitute.
So, while the movie is well-made in most respects, and the actors are good, I did NOT find this movie satisfying. Maybe if I were a fan of Greek mythology it would come across better. I found it very interesting, just not very good.
On BluRay from my public library, my wife skipped. -
maurice_yacowar8 November 2017It takes a Greek director — Yorgos Lanthimos — to revive the elemental power of Greek tragedy in a modern setting.
Because this is such a primal story it could be the most powerful and disturbing film of the year. The characters speak in a kind of dead tone, usually on banal matters (like how waterproof a watch is). The music alternates eerie silences with harsh nerve-wracking strings and drums. Shots of surgery and blood churn the stomach. The widescreen settings have an amphitheatrical stretch. Alone among recent films, it sends you out in catharsis — "calm of mind, all passion spent." This film releases you, drained.
A man's misdeed brings down a curse upon his entire house that only his own immense sacrifice can expiate. That's the Greek tragedy, beside which our mundane stories of simple guilt, rationalization, mercy, forgiveness, and even human justice — the business of cops and courts — dwindle into insignificance.
This primitive drama involves a heart surgeon Steven Murphy and his ophthalmologist wife Anna. That is, the elemental force erupts in the seat of modern science, rationalism, humanity. The professional curers are profoundly afflicted. Their reason is helpless, irrelevant, once the old pagan gods have been stirred to ire.
Dr Murphy was at least tipsy when his bungled surgery cost a man's life. Murphy has not openly accepted responsibility or expressed his guilt. But he did attend the man's funeral and stop drinking altogether. He also befriended the man's orphaned son Martin, whom he buys gifts and offers friendship as a sop to confronting his own guilt on any deeper level.
Now Martin swells from orphaned son into preternatural agent of vengeance. For his father's death has proved a curse on his house too. He and his mother — in different ways — crave Dr Murphy to replace the dead man in their lives: "My mom's attracted to you. She's got a great body."
This thuggish kid has an other-worldly understanding. He has become the seer, the oracle who alone fathoms the root cause of the Murphy curse and its resolution. If Murphy doesn't kill one of his children, his entire family will die. First they are paralyzed, deprived of appetite and will, then their eyes erupt in Oedipusian bleed, then they die.
Of course these modern sophisticates deny this savage myth. Murphy in particular blames Martin for the curse he has only reported. Daughter Kim understands, because she wrote a paper on Iphygenia, Agamemnon's daughter whom he has to sacrifice to atone for having killed a sacred deer.
Kim is attracted to Martin and offers herself to him. In him she senses a worldliness apart from the others. Having initially assumed kid brother Bob would go ("Can I have your MP3 when you die?) she then volunteers to be Dr Murphy's sacrifice. She knows the story.
The Murphys' life is characterized by a kind of torpor. No-one has any zest for anything. The conversations are banal and wary. Dr Murphy and then Kim report her first period as if it were a head cold. All sense of the primeval has been lost. Anna feigns total anesthesia for her sex with her husband. His friend and anesthesiologist charges Anna a hand job for info.
Facing the curse Steven tries coaxing, coercion, threats, even physical violence and the threat of murder, to shake the seer off his vision. Steven turns to a school counsellor for advice on which child to pick. Anna twigs to their predicament: "Our children are dying, but yes. I can make you mashed potatoes." She marshals the will to free Martin from her husband's futile abuse.
Indeed both the doctor and the anesthesiologist each blame the other for failures in the operating room. This is the modern world with advanced science and culture but with stupefied emotions and a shallow sense of responsibility. Dr Murphy forbids smoking in the house, but his wife and daughter smoke outside. Martin accepts his recent addiction with the same resignation he seems to have accepted as his role of messenger from the gods, to bring Murphy to their harsh justice.
This elemental tragedy is the prophet director's harsh judgment on a world that evades its guilt and responsibility by suspending all conscience, all sense of a higher purpose than the mundane and worldly. The modern news cycle allows no time for the eternal. -
SnoopyStyle3 March 2018Surgeon Steven Murphy (Colin Farrell) and wife Anna (Nicole Kidman) have teen daughter Kim and young son Bob. He is befriended by Martin (Barry Keoghan) who is the son of his dead patient. Martin insinuates himself into Steven's family and Kim falls for him. Martin reveals his threatening predictions with a devastating solution.
After his interesting weird The Lobster, Greek filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos creates another oddity. His insistence on the mannered monotone dialogue delivery has a hypnotic effect that puts me to sleep. I had to rewind to get back into the flow. Keoghan's dead-eye serial killer performance is too obvious. I can't believe that Steven would bring him into his home. While I appreciate a lot of the outsider oddity flavor, I cannot take any reality from any of the characters or situation. The first thought I have as Steven is that the boy poisoned my family. At a certain point, these are no longer realistic people but rather artistic installations. There is some value in the artwork and I can imagine this story as a shocking psychological thriller in another person's hands. -
bottomsgaming29 November 2017Yorgos Lanthimos's latest film, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, is well-shot, adeptly acted, intensely written, and beautifully unsettling. An outstanding achievement by any metric. And I never want to see it again.
From the opening shot, the film wears its tone not only on its sleeve, but also on its chest, face, and everywhere else: Its gonna make you uncomfortable. From the haunting score that seems to creep its way into every scene, to the awkward and robotic characters, to the downright scary Martin (played excellently by Barry Keoghan), the movie feels 'off.' We've seen this "seemingly perfect upper- class family has a darkness that tears them apart" type story before, but never so viscerally displayed as it is here.
If the characters' inhuman mannerisms, conversations, and actions aren't unsettling enough, the film also delivers enough on-screen gross outs to hammer home a truly affecting experience. The film is objectively well-shot, and delivers a capable, if slightly subdued plot, while building to a frightening conclusion. It's not a horror movie sort of frightening either, but more of a, "I can't believe I'm about to watch this" feeling.
I know that's a tough sell. The Killing of a sacred Deer is not going to make you feel good. The film is filled with an overarching, all-consuming darkness that lingers even after it's over. Still, it's a truly unique and deeply affecting film that's worth watching, even if only once. -
Gregor_814 January 2018It's not "weird" just to be weird, It's trying to show us something discomforting, that conventional movies CAN'T.
While The Killing Of a Sacred Deer will be dismissed by the mainstream, for it's very unconventional acting, pacing, and plot, for other's it offers a discomforting conversation on the dark reality of nature and justice. You aren't supposed to ENJOY it, you are supposed to appreciate it.
The intentionally cold and flat reactions from it's characters will turn many off, but give insight into empathy and trust. The subtraction and skewing of emotion allows us to get a closer look at ourselves and our expectations for coping with threats and loss. It's maddening and incredibly uncomfortable to watch, but that is it's aim and success. You have to stop wanting the movie to be what you want it to be, and start wondering why it is the way it is, if you want to take something away from it.
While the movie doesn't meet it's impact potential by missing some opportunities for heavier moments and more character development, it is still fascinating, challenging, and rewarding for an open mind.
For people that appreciate brain teasers like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mulholland Drive, Borgman, Under The Skin, and Sleeping Beauty. -
This is my first Yorgos Lanthimos film and it's also a film I would probably never want to rewatch.
The Killing of a Sacred Deer is about Steven, a surgeon, whose family and life takes a turn for the worst after he befriends a teenager named Martin.
This film gave me a very disturbed feeling during it and after it had ended. It's rare to see a film like this being made in such a unique and uncomfortable manner. It shows to me what a different director Lanthimos is and how he stand out from the crowd. From the chilling music to the character interactions, everything provided an uneasy feeling. The way each person spoke kept on freaking me out due to the absurdity of the dialogue and how wooden and emotionless each actor's performance was. It just seemed very unnatural and robotic which sparked this antsy feeling within me.
Another huge part of the film was the music. The music had a very disturbing tone to it which added to the strange atmosphere and increased the anxiety levels. The camerawork was very strange and unlike anything I've seen in a film. Sometimes the camera would be extremely far away from the characters, making them seem very small in comparison to the size of the room. Techniques like these gave a very subtle reminder as to how powerless the family were and it conveyed to me how talented of a filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos is.
You can argue that the performances are really bad since everyone had the same monotone, expressionless and wooden dialogue delivery but it's very obvious how intentional this was. Colin Farrell was really good. It's been a while since I saw Nicole Kidman and it felt great to see her perform this well. The star, however, was Barry Keoghan who seemed the most human out of everybody. His character was very interesting and he absolutely killed it in his role.
I'll be checking out Yorgos Lanthimos's other work for sure. This film really got under my skin and didn't leave until it ended. It's not everyone's cup of tea but if you like offbeat movies, The Killing of a Sacred Deer is for you. -
davidmvining21 November 2019Yes, 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. -
Cineanalyst2 December 2018What a strange filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos is. Had I not already seen "The Lobster" (2015) (and have since seen two of his earlier Greek productions), I probably would've been completely taken aback by this one, "The Killing of a Sacred Deer." Like its predecessor, its characters seem to occupy some alternate reality entirely dominated by egocentrism, deviant sex and magical retaliatory justice. Again, the acting is intentionally stilted, and there seem to be archaic literary references. I found the eye-for-an-eye pun of "The Lobster" amusing, but the source of Ancient-to-Classical Greek mythology here is quite a treat for me. At university, I took a class, not unlike the daughter in this movie, that included reading the play "Iphigenia in Aulis" by Euripides and, then, viewing the 1977 film adaptation "Iphigenia" directed by Mihalis Kakogiannis. Unfortunately, the result in "The Killing of a Sacred Deer" is rather muddled.
In the Greek myth, King Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter, Iphigenia, at the behest of the goddess Artemis to allow him and his troops to proceed on the warpath to fight the Trojans. In some versions, Iphigenia is replaced by a deer, hence the title of this movie. The reason I don't think the effects work as well here as they did in "The Lobster" is because whereas that movie took human shortcomings to absurd extremes, this one takes what was already by modern standards an absurd myth and attempts to make it modern and more ordinary. Gods are dead and replaced by doctors, and if there is a god, apparently, he's a pockmarked teenager seeking revenge for his dead father. I suppose a surgeon's wife role playing during sex as a patient under general anesthesia and a father recalling to his son the time he masturbated his father is more in line with some of the sexual perversity one finds in some Classical Greek literature, though. Yet, overall, it comes across as disjointed. If this were supposed to be a psychological thriller, it seems difficult to lure the spectator in without being able to identify with the characters--whereas this was unnecessary in the black comedy of "The Lobster" (and contradictory to the intent of the Greek movies). But, the stilted acting and illogical premise of the narrative works against identification. I don't think any amount of tense scoring and camera movement from distant perspectives can alleviate that--in a world where nothing is sacred.
P.S. I still don't quite get the point of "Groundhog Day" (1993) as the film-within-the-film. Is it just because characters in both are prisoners of fate or something? I prefer the self-reflexivity of the director's prior "Dogtooth" (2009) and "Alps" (2011). -
Xstal7 January 2023What would you do, if a young man came to you, presented you with options after all you'd put him through, where the choices were insane, but you had to take the blame, a vendetta must be settled, and there's no way to eschew.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, the justice of the vengeful although I'm not sure it would soothe, but the killing sprees continue in 50 countries and some more, the barbarity of revenge, some still find difficult to abhor.
Barry Keoghan is outstanding as the vengeful child seeking recompense for the perceived crime committed by Colin Farrell's character in an imaginatively told tale of retribution you rather hoped had disappeared some time ago but sadly hasn't. -
classicsoncall17 January 2020Ahh, so this is the same director that brought us "The Lobster"; somehow I'm not surprised. I read a few dozen reviews of the movie posted here on IMDb, and of course a lot of them state how absurd the story is. Of those that commented favorably however, they seemed to attach some credibility to the events that occurred in the picture. That's where my criticism of the film actually lies. First off, it's undeniable that the film starts out with an oddly creepy vibe. The relationship between Steven Murphy (Colin Farrell) and Martin (Barry Keoghan) is shrouded in some kind of mystery that the viewer is not privy to. My own sense was that there was an aberrant sexual relationship between the two with all the various allusions made by the characters, like meeting in secret and the gifts bestowed on Martin by the esteemed cardiac surgeon.
But when we come to learn that this is a revenge tale on the part of the young teen who's father died on Murphy's operating table, any attempt to decipher reality from what's going on goes astray. The main question one must ask is how Martin was perpetrating the illness that was about to decimate the Murphy family. I came up with two possibilities - poison or voodoo magic. The poison angle was immediately set aside by the various experts called in to diagnose Murphy's son Bob (Sunny Suljic), who was exhibiting the symptoms Martin warned Steven about. As for the voodoo magic, well, I'll let the reader make up his own mind on that.
Perhaps we have to take Martin's own advice at the moment he took a chunk out of his own arm while detained in the Murphy basement. He stated to Steven, "Do you understand? It's metaphorical". Which then puts it in context with the Greek tragedy aspects that other reviewers have commented on of which I have no knowledge. Following a perverse instance of Russian roulette performed by Murphy against the members of his own family, the revenge goal attained, some semblance of normality is restored and the remaining Murphy's are allowed to forge ahead with their existence. The diner scene at the finale offered an opportunity for some sort of confrontation that wasn't going to happen. The trace of a smile by daughter Kim (Raffey Cassidy) appeared to be well out of context with the situation given her willingness to sacrifice herself for the rest of the family.
So what's the message here? Darned if I know and I'll be darned if you know either. I generally go for symbolism in film, but it's tough to find anything of value here. Maybe it is metaphorical, but of what, I really couldn't say. -
mrsaliciameyer3 May 2020This was the absolute worst movie. Terrible Movie. Terrible music. Terrible story line. Waste of 2 hours.
-
kosmasp26 March 2018Dialog is going to be weird. Suffice to say that you won't feel anything close to something familiar. The movie is way off and if you are familiar with the work of the director this will not come as a surprise. Obviously for some this was the first experience with him. And it can be intimidating and rather confusing. There are certain rules that are there and even the structure is quite "normal", but other than that ... all bets are off.
The acting may seem wooden, but it's intentional. As are the pauses and the "humor"/comedy. Not for the masses and definitely more confusing than trying to explain anything. But therein lies the charm of the movie - if you can see it and have an open mind about it. -
dana-kellish8 July 2020"I'll make you eat your hair" is the punishment Collin Farrell's character, Steven, threatens his son with right before describing to the kid how he, as a child, once masturbated his drunken father. That's just to give you some idea of how strange this film is. The performances of Farrell and Nicole Kidman are excellent, though purposefully stilted and generally cold, but it's the performance of Barry Keoghan as the family's nemesis, Martin, that is a wonder to watch. Initially appearing harmless, if a bit odd, it becomes soon apparent that this young man has a diabolical score to settle with Steven, the doctor who may have been responsible for a tragedy in Martin's life. This film will undoubtedly divide its audience, but it's tremendously well done.
-
sektoras-5370418 December 2017I don't want to write any criticism for the movie. Most good reviews have done it better than me. What I would like to write has to do with basic understanding of a particular kind of movies.
There are movies which are self-explanatory and there are movies like this one. I find it sad that a lot of critics have the words "obtuse, weird, no meaning, garbage, etc ". I am Greek so I am familiar with the context and the generic idea behind the movie but even in other complicated movies (directors like Aronofsky, Bunuel, etc have created movies like this one (and because i want to avoid haters, i am NOT making a comparison between Lanthimos and those guys)), I always, ALWAYS think and read before I judge.
It's one of those movies that you need to think and even by thinking you may still not be able to understand it. You may need to read before passing any judgment. But for me at least this is the beautiful thing with these kind of movies. They educate you. You evolve as a personality because of them. To rephrase it, you may evolve as a personality because of them if you let yourself open. If you baptize the movie as crap just because you found the acting "weird" or "empty" without thinking why the director choose this approach(?), then you have barricaded yourself under the safety of your own little world.
Of course if you believe that a movie is good only if you are able to understand it without the need of any reading, considerable thinking etc. then of course this is not a movie for you and you have excluded yourself from a vast collection of amazing directors and movies but that's just personal preference. There is always a new Saw movie coming along :) ! -
lor_11 February 2019This 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. -
antoniokowatsch26 December 2017This movie is really weird. If you've seen the trailer you know already most of the themes that are explored in this movie (with the sole exception of the ending). Which is pretty disappointing. That's not how you're supposed to make a trailer.
When I said that the movie is weird I meant it. The ambiance is very strange and can only be described as "autistic" (and no, this is not a joke). At the beginning of the movie all of the characters act as if they're on the autism spectrum. All the protagonists talk as if they're robots, completely devoid of anything that could be described as an emotion. As the movie progresses and as things start to escalate the protagonists finally start to act like normal human beings. It's highly likely that this was done intentionally but I found it to be a little "gimmicky".
The one thing that the movie has going for it are the totally ridiculous dialogues. I know, this is supposed to be a horror movie but some of the dialogues in the movie were so bizarre that they're more akin to comedy. Many of the funniest dialogues were even exaggerated due to the contrasting presentation of the actors. Here are some of my personal favorites: "I won't let you go until you taste my tart"... (obvious double-entendre) "My girl started menstruating last week"... (WTF?!) "Can you take off your shirt and show me?"... (said the kid to the doctor) "I will make you eat your hair!"... (spoke the father to his son) And that's not even all of it. There is this weird scene where the protagonist tells his son a "secret". Believe me when I tell you this; it's quite messed up (the story that he tells him).
There was a lot of suspense but I can't help but feel confused. I don't quite get the movie to be perfectly honest. I think it was too artsy fartsy but maybe I'm just missing something. Who knows?
Final verdict: I personally couldn't wholeheartedly recommend the movie but I do respect the execution of the director. If you're into weird movies you can give it a watch but otherwise I'd advise against it. -
marmar-6978010 April 2020The killing of a sacred deer is a film that will work and be loved only by specific moviegoers that loves this kind of films and its weirdness , every character in a film is very weird and it is easily noticable that something is wrong with them,either in mental or different ways,and how they deal with a mistakes they made in past and becase of that present comes to haunt them becase of that,everyone give a great performances,expecely actor who played weird kid that was very creepy and unsetteling to watch,the killing of a sacred deer is a very different film from many that we get now days,but that is good thing for me
-
Fandango13728 July 2020The film confronts the viewer, existing in a rational world, with the what happens when one meets an irrational force. A force that disenfranchises an individual, as they confront the stronger opponent. The irrational and unexplainable, as it invades a comfortable and familiar environment, revealing a helplessness in the individual. This can be referred to as fate.
The title draws parallels to the Ancient Greek Myth about King Agamemnon in Sophocles' Electra, whose army incurred the wrath of Artemis for killing her sacred deer. Martin, then, is our Artemis. This is further alluded to when Martin asks, "how do you know I'm not God?". This references, of course, not The God, but one of the lesser Gods known in Greek Mythology. In Greek Mytholoy, Gods were seen as the perfect distillation of a set of ideas or principles. If in Christianity Christ is the embodiment of morality and virtue, then in Greek Mythology, Artemis was the God of hunting. Hunting is seen as a confrontation with nature, a form of sustenance, as well as man's subsequent triumph over it. When viewing Martin as a God-like figure, we are able to explain the preternatural events that are shown. As the world of the film exists under the umbrella of Martin's rules (God-like figure), then all of the events shown are consequences of disobeying his rules. Martin, in the context of the film, is the God of surgery.
Steven, existing under the umbrella of this paradigm, and going against this law, has condemned himself to God's wrath (Martin). Steven's sin isn't that of killing Martin's father, which is something that may occur during surgery and is always understood as a possibility, but of going against the codex of surgery. As he was under the influence of alcohol during surgery, Steven broke Martin's law (God of Surgery). He has gone against the objective law of God, and throughout the film justifies his own rules as the accepted norm, "it's acceptable to drink a little before an operation to calm the nerves."
We see that Martin is not seeking vengeance, as evidenced by him stating that he holds no anger towards Steven. Martin is God, and he is enforcing the law of God by punishing Steven for his impropriety. When Steven meets with Martin at the cafe, this is the deciding moment of his fate. This is indicated by Martin stating, "this is the critical moment that needed to come to fruition, and here it is." When Martin explains what Steven must do, Steven realizes what justice means within the confines of his own rules. It is important to note that Martin does not tell Steven that he should repent. This is because Martin is only the law, the prevailing force dictating that for every action must accompany an equal action. His mechanical and emotionless demeanor is further indicative of the notion that Martin is merely the law. He is objective and cerebral.
Fate is typically seen as deterministic. It is accepted as the product of the external, as something unable to be changed. Fate is not seen as the manifestation of a given internal state, which is able to be influenced. We are able to shape how we act or how we think, but we do not see these as arbiters of outcome. During antiquity, philosophers, seeing themselves as under the influence of something greater than them, understood that changing their inner state could inevitably change their fate.
Around the 4th century, as antiquity came to an end, the rise of Christianity replaced Greek Mythology, with the former's understanding of God as Love. This paradigm shift now placed fate as the product of God's will, which the believer saw as a part of His Love. Now love is seen as greater than law, and the belief that God awaits mercy as opposed to sacrifice. Blind fate is seen as the will of God, leading one to His grace.
Despite the West being a product of Christianity, Steven does not adhere to its principles. He does not acknowledge his fault, instead battling his fate internally. Steven, existing within the confines of the temporal, is unwilling and unable to acknowledge that change must come from within. He battles the external by trying to explain Bob's symptoms as physical, dismissing the possibility of psychosomatic disorder, which is an attempt at confronting the external by searching from within (the mind).
In the end, there is no conventional catharsis, which is expected from Greek Mythology, where what occurs is the result of governed laws. The idea of outcome being the product of an internal state is similar to the teachings of C.N. Lazarev, where he writes that change happens on the energetic level before eventually manifesting in the temporal. The frequency and type of thought or action determines the density of this energy and its subsequent composition.
And so Steven conforms to the law of Martin, existing externally, but does not change himself internally. The family leaves the diner spiritually unchanged, still existing within the confines of the corporeal as absolute. -
stmedic-796-2632710 December 2021I think driving an icepick through my head would have hurt less than making it to the end of this (movie??) I only finished it in the hope there would be a major reveal in the point of this waste of time. I can't understand what Nicole and Colin saw in the script to make this flick, maybe some beer money? Who knows......................
-
heinakuproductions21 September 2017Neither. This is a Yorgos Lanthimos joint all the way. But it's as powerful and piercingly original as a work of the aforementioned masters.
The premise isn't as intriguing or clever as The Lobster, but the execution, oh boy... is even better. A horrific black comedy, a nail-biting thriller, and a compelling moral tale all at once. The entire cast is superb, but Barry Keoghan will be a star. Between this and Dunkirk, it's his year.
Go watch it on the big screen. Experience it, then see it again, and let its brilliance wash over you. I don't say this often, but to me, this is an instant classic. -
This slow paced psychological thriller embodies everything that is key to making the viewer feel a lively and frightening experience: it is beautifully shot, with very talented actors, a soundtrack that will give you chilling goosebumps, and an enigmatic plot. While some parts might feel slow or superfluous, this is easily compensated by the rising tension. Moreover, the fright is ingeniously generated through the actors' astute portrayal of character turmoil, and not cheaply made jump-scares or gratuitous violent scenes. In a way, The Killing of A Sacred Deer reminds me of Cape Fear (1991). Great movie if you like biting your knuckles in apprehension and get your nerves all twisted up, not so great if you are searching for fast-paced graphic experience (although the movie contains some instances of sexuality and gore).
-
trevor-260834 December 2021Terrible waste of time. No idea what why who etc..,could not understand anything in this film. Maybe some arty hip people would think it's good but for me just Mon event.