Tough to watch, but it kept the tension until the end. It reminded me of that saying that there are good people and bad people but for good people to do evil things you need religion...
9 Reviews
'Irreversible' envy
vmalarcon31 July 2022
V disheartening..n the approach of a society..
ng-naveen18 August 2022
Reminds me of Amphetamine movie
gbhxkcggj25 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Ok, this movie is actually based on true event that happened in Belgium more than decade ago, when a gang of homophobic guys doing violence towards islamic gay guy. They beat him up and left him died lies on the ground during possibly cold season.
This reminds me to Amphetamine (I'm not sure whether it's taiwan or hongkong movie), same brutal, same disturbing, except in amohetamine, the victim is survived, and in Animals there's no ra*pe scene thing. But the reason why this violence's happened because both of them want to help a girl avoid the gang.
Overall this movie 7/10 from me, but again, the graphic is kinda disturbing, and I skipped some of "that part" because it's too painful to watch.
This reminds me to Amphetamine (I'm not sure whether it's taiwan or hongkong movie), same brutal, same disturbing, except in amohetamine, the victim is survived, and in Animals there's no ra*pe scene thing. But the reason why this violence's happened because both of them want to help a girl avoid the gang.
Overall this movie 7/10 from me, but again, the graphic is kinda disturbing, and I skipped some of "that part" because it's too painful to watch.
A tough ninety minutes
laduqesa27 September 2022
We see homophobia in three aspects here and each of them has an effect. Firstly the religious homophobia of a conformist immigrant family. This is passive in the main because Brahim is only out to his brother. However the brother's wife has sussed and overreacts in respect of her son.
Then the utter hatred of supposedly straight macho guys taking their restricted society's mores to an extreme. There's a hint here of internalised homophobia too as Brahim recognises one of the guys - but from where? Maybe this was why he got into the car with them unsuspecting of their motives.
The third segment follows one of the men in the car and his life. We see that his father is getting married the day after the incident to another man. Could this explain (but it can't excuse) his part in the events of that terrible night?
The film was based on a real event and in real life the attackers were caught and imprisoned although the film does not concern itself with any consequences.
Searingly difficult to watch and unflinchingly accurate especially in the nuances of the immigrant community (the writer and director is a Muslim) this was a film that remains etched on the memory. And even more so that one knows that the people depicted in the film are true to life and real.
Then the utter hatred of supposedly straight macho guys taking their restricted society's mores to an extreme. There's a hint here of internalised homophobia too as Brahim recognises one of the guys - but from where? Maybe this was why he got into the car with them unsuspecting of their motives.
The third segment follows one of the men in the car and his life. We see that his father is getting married the day after the incident to another man. Could this explain (but it can't excuse) his part in the events of that terrible night?
The film was based on a real event and in real life the attackers were caught and imprisoned although the film does not concern itself with any consequences.
Searingly difficult to watch and unflinchingly accurate especially in the nuances of the immigrant community (the writer and director is a Muslim) this was a film that remains etched on the memory. And even more so that one knows that the people depicted in the film are true to life and real.
Almost a dangerous movie.
fabrizio-297-9059985 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Acting is very good. Okay, that is said, done.
Now, the movie. Think of a JFK-assassination-movie that ends when Oswald washes his hands right after shooting. Well, that's what does this movie.
It's the incomplete story. You get out of this, wondering why you are given just a part of the story, of a true event story, and what's more, quite an unknown and poorly covered story.
I never heard of it and wiki pages are poorly documented, I had to look over the internet after this, to grab some piece of information. As an example, it's not on wiki, and it's not in the movie, how they got cut. In fact, it's not even in the movie if he's killed or not. Unfortunately he did die, and his body remained undiscovered several days, but again, that's not in the movie.
So we kept all the time having questions about what we were watching, I mean, having our mind out of the movie itself. It's made for an audience that know all about this crime.
First, this movie only focuses details on how bad they beat this man. In a sort of super sadistic way. Did the director enjoy it ? Let's hope not, but IT CAN be seen this way.
Second, the first part of the movie is about his Arab family that can't stand he's gay. What's the point with the story ? The family has no link with the murderers, a gay friendly family would have not change anything to the murder, so what is the subject of the movie ?
Third, the last part shows just a bit of the life of one of the murderers, you get to know he lives in a hopeless uneducated family. Is this a point ? A bit of understanding, oh poor, guy they don't have values ? That is precisely to what justice had to say no, as they have been sentenced with aggravating charges. What's this movie is trying to do ? It ends with his father marrying a guy. Oh, that's why ! Oh sure, that's an explanation of this hate. Is this director completely crazy, not to show this, but to show only this ?
The movie is filmed in stupid 4:3 ratio, the new pretentious trend of some directors, the sound mix is amateurish (but it got an award for best sound ?!), there's nearly a 100% use of hand held camera, including on non action scenes. And the key - horrible - scene is filmed like with cell phone. This is a too sad and too serious story to be treated as a sort of experimental art-house piece of ..., to run movie festivals.
I mean, the videography can be compared to The Blair Witch Project (1999), this is mad !
Because it is too violent, I was more shocked by the violence played, than moved by the victim's suffering because that is what focuses the screenplay. That's the title, right, "Animals". Nothing to do with Gus Van Sant's Elephant (2003), that focuses on the victims and does show how the murderers were driven into their madness. Too much is too much, so my brain ringed "hey, it's just actors and it's a movie", and once again I was out of the movie, wondering why I was watching this, and what we were going to eat after it. My mate didn't and, he hesitated about to stop watching, so I had to tell him, "hey, it's just actors".
The only moving scene is when one murderer erases one by one the pictures of the victim's phone, like erasing the victim's pieces of life one by one from this world, or a second way of killing him. Interesting, but that's just one minute of the movie.
Nothing in the movie tells it's bad values. I really think, some sick violent people, homophobic and other kind of haters, could take pleasure in watching this.
Now, the movie. Think of a JFK-assassination-movie that ends when Oswald washes his hands right after shooting. Well, that's what does this movie.
It's the incomplete story. You get out of this, wondering why you are given just a part of the story, of a true event story, and what's more, quite an unknown and poorly covered story.
I never heard of it and wiki pages are poorly documented, I had to look over the internet after this, to grab some piece of information. As an example, it's not on wiki, and it's not in the movie, how they got cut. In fact, it's not even in the movie if he's killed or not. Unfortunately he did die, and his body remained undiscovered several days, but again, that's not in the movie.
So we kept all the time having questions about what we were watching, I mean, having our mind out of the movie itself. It's made for an audience that know all about this crime.
First, this movie only focuses details on how bad they beat this man. In a sort of super sadistic way. Did the director enjoy it ? Let's hope not, but IT CAN be seen this way.
Second, the first part of the movie is about his Arab family that can't stand he's gay. What's the point with the story ? The family has no link with the murderers, a gay friendly family would have not change anything to the murder, so what is the subject of the movie ?
Third, the last part shows just a bit of the life of one of the murderers, you get to know he lives in a hopeless uneducated family. Is this a point ? A bit of understanding, oh poor, guy they don't have values ? That is precisely to what justice had to say no, as they have been sentenced with aggravating charges. What's this movie is trying to do ? It ends with his father marrying a guy. Oh, that's why ! Oh sure, that's an explanation of this hate. Is this director completely crazy, not to show this, but to show only this ?
The movie is filmed in stupid 4:3 ratio, the new pretentious trend of some directors, the sound mix is amateurish (but it got an award for best sound ?!), there's nearly a 100% use of hand held camera, including on non action scenes. And the key - horrible - scene is filmed like with cell phone. This is a too sad and too serious story to be treated as a sort of experimental art-house piece of ..., to run movie festivals.
I mean, the videography can be compared to The Blair Witch Project (1999), this is mad !
Because it is too violent, I was more shocked by the violence played, than moved by the victim's suffering because that is what focuses the screenplay. That's the title, right, "Animals". Nothing to do with Gus Van Sant's Elephant (2003), that focuses on the victims and does show how the murderers were driven into their madness. Too much is too much, so my brain ringed "hey, it's just actors and it's a movie", and once again I was out of the movie, wondering why I was watching this, and what we were going to eat after it. My mate didn't and, he hesitated about to stop watching, so I had to tell him, "hey, it's just actors".
The only moving scene is when one murderer erases one by one the pictures of the victim's phone, like erasing the victim's pieces of life one by one from this world, or a second way of killing him. Interesting, but that's just one minute of the movie.
Nothing in the movie tells it's bad values. I really think, some sick violent people, homophobic and other kind of haters, could take pleasure in watching this.
Remarkable account of a crime
EdgarST19 June 2023
«Animals» is the kind of film that, when it ended, I thought, "I would have wanted to make a movie like this." And it has nothing to do with its subject or its technical values, but with its dramaturgical proposal and its audiovisual conception. Nabil Ben Yadir appears for the first time in my panorama of contemporary world cinema. And maybe, in a few years, he will abandon this way of telling us a story and become more "mainstream". Or maybe not.
The fact is that Yadir uses a structural and narrative strategy that, because it is rare in ordinary cinema, makes more convincing its account of the crime of the 32-year-old Belgian citizen Ihsane Jarfi, which occurred in the city of Liège in 2012, at the hands of four men who inhumanly humiliated him, tortured him, robbed him and abandoned him naked on the outskirts of the city, where he died a few hours later.
The first part of the film takes place during his mother's birthday, in which Ihsane's older brother (in the film, Brahim) causes tragedy by preventing Brahim's five-year-old partner from reaching the celebration. He assaults and expels him without Brahim knowing: similarly, the director spares us the scene and concentrates on the homophobia of the brother, who corners Brahim and wields the old claim of "respect" for the (Muslim) family. The rhythm of this block of scenes, encounters (including a beautiful one, between Brahim and his father) and disagreements, is agile, dynamic, with hand-held camera, establishing a happy contrast between the party, Brahim's wait for his lover and the harassment of his brother and his wife. Brahim leaves the party.
The next block is the most tense and impressive, an orgy of violence and death that mixes shots of traditional composition and format with long fixed shots of the camera observing (Brahim naked in the trunk, for example) and other moving shots shot using the format of mobiles. After having several drinks in a gay nightclub that he often visits, Brahim helps a prostitute on the street being harassed by four drugged and drunk men who are celebrating the birthday of the vilest of all. Brahim proposes to take them to a women's bar, unaware that he has proposed his own death. This time the director does not spare us details and it is worth warning susceptible people that this section could affect them.
The final third of the film is dramaturgically brilliant, introducing us to the home of Loïc, the youngest of the four murderers, when his cronies drop him off at his door. A few minutes are enough to deduce the violence generated by his family picture. However, Yadir's script reserves more surprises for us when Loïc, barely out of adolescence, attends his biological father's wedding, where, in addition to seeing the boy suffer a crisis of pain in the hands with which he contributed to the death of Brahim, the 360-degree circular final shot reveals a detail of his father that obliquely but unmistakably establishes a connection to the crime.
«Animals» is a recommendable film about the global reality of homophobia in social strata that we rarely think of looking at, in these days when everyone celebrates the tricks of gender and the trans world. It is interesting that the film resists the fashionable formats (wide screen) and uses the old aspect ratio of 4:3, as in the origins of cinema in which films were squares of light.
The fact is that Yadir uses a structural and narrative strategy that, because it is rare in ordinary cinema, makes more convincing its account of the crime of the 32-year-old Belgian citizen Ihsane Jarfi, which occurred in the city of Liège in 2012, at the hands of four men who inhumanly humiliated him, tortured him, robbed him and abandoned him naked on the outskirts of the city, where he died a few hours later.
The first part of the film takes place during his mother's birthday, in which Ihsane's older brother (in the film, Brahim) causes tragedy by preventing Brahim's five-year-old partner from reaching the celebration. He assaults and expels him without Brahim knowing: similarly, the director spares us the scene and concentrates on the homophobia of the brother, who corners Brahim and wields the old claim of "respect" for the (Muslim) family. The rhythm of this block of scenes, encounters (including a beautiful one, between Brahim and his father) and disagreements, is agile, dynamic, with hand-held camera, establishing a happy contrast between the party, Brahim's wait for his lover and the harassment of his brother and his wife. Brahim leaves the party.
The next block is the most tense and impressive, an orgy of violence and death that mixes shots of traditional composition and format with long fixed shots of the camera observing (Brahim naked in the trunk, for example) and other moving shots shot using the format of mobiles. After having several drinks in a gay nightclub that he often visits, Brahim helps a prostitute on the street being harassed by four drugged and drunk men who are celebrating the birthday of the vilest of all. Brahim proposes to take them to a women's bar, unaware that he has proposed his own death. This time the director does not spare us details and it is worth warning susceptible people that this section could affect them.
The final third of the film is dramaturgically brilliant, introducing us to the home of Loïc, the youngest of the four murderers, when his cronies drop him off at his door. A few minutes are enough to deduce the violence generated by his family picture. However, Yadir's script reserves more surprises for us when Loïc, barely out of adolescence, attends his biological father's wedding, where, in addition to seeing the boy suffer a crisis of pain in the hands with which he contributed to the death of Brahim, the 360-degree circular final shot reveals a detail of his father that obliquely but unmistakably establishes a connection to the crime.
«Animals» is a recommendable film about the global reality of homophobia in social strata that we rarely think of looking at, in these days when everyone celebrates the tricks of gender and the trans world. It is interesting that the film resists the fashionable formats (wide screen) and uses the old aspect ratio of 4:3, as in the origins of cinema in which films were squares of light.
An extremely difficult watch, but an important message
johannes2000-13 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very difficult movie to watch. It's based on true events: the atrocious assault, torture and murder of a gay young man with an Islamic background by a group of drunken homophobic sadists in 2012. Filmmaker Nabil Ben Nadir doesn't spare the viewers, we get to see the whole ordeal in all its gruesome details. At first I was skeptical about this: is such an apalling display of violence really necessary to make the point? But gradually I changed my mind: yes, by showing it thus harsh and unpolished, it's the only way to convince viewers of the lengths of brutality to which homophobia up to this very day can go, and to let us almost personally feel the reality of it.
Cinematographically the director has used an interesting approach, dividing the story in three different parts. At first we see secretly gay Brahim in the midst of a festive birthday-celebration with his large Islamic family, nervously awaiting his boyfriends arrival, when he is suddenly confronted by a angry family member about his being gay. The gap between the warmth of the family and this ostracism couldn't be bigger. In part two Brahim unsuspectingly takes a lift in a car filled with drunken thugs, which leads to the fatal abuse and murder. And then there is a surprising third part, where we follow one of these guys in his own everyday life, to illustrate (as I saw it) that danger can smoulder in the most inconspicuous and seemingly well behaving people. All the time the hand-held camera follows the characters extremely close, in long nervous shots, making you as a viewer almost part of the action.
Brahim is played by Soufiane Chilah, he is already excellent in part one, but especially in part two one can only admire his readiness to go all the way, to comply with the director's need for extreme realism; the shooting of these difficult scenes must have been an actual ordeal for him, as well as for the whole crew.
Cinematographically the director has used an interesting approach, dividing the story in three different parts. At first we see secretly gay Brahim in the midst of a festive birthday-celebration with his large Islamic family, nervously awaiting his boyfriends arrival, when he is suddenly confronted by a angry family member about his being gay. The gap between the warmth of the family and this ostracism couldn't be bigger. In part two Brahim unsuspectingly takes a lift in a car filled with drunken thugs, which leads to the fatal abuse and murder. And then there is a surprising third part, where we follow one of these guys in his own everyday life, to illustrate (as I saw it) that danger can smoulder in the most inconspicuous and seemingly well behaving people. All the time the hand-held camera follows the characters extremely close, in long nervous shots, making you as a viewer almost part of the action.
Brahim is played by Soufiane Chilah, he is already excellent in part one, but especially in part two one can only admire his readiness to go all the way, to comply with the director's need for extreme realism; the shooting of these difficult scenes must have been an actual ordeal for him, as well as for the whole crew.
A Necessary Film
jromanbaker29 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
' Animals ' is not an entertaining film. It is brilliantly and quietly directed by Nadir Ben Yadir and it shows homophobia to the most extreme point possible. Soufiane Chilah plays a man who is surrounded by everyday homophobia and he tries to navigate himself through this. That is until he intervenes one night outside a gay bar to help a woman who is being molested by a carful of people. He loses his navigation just once and gets into the car, and then he loses his way into the terrible night that awaits him. Just one necessary image for any reader who may see this review; naked on the grass in a place called nowhere, and wounded, he is told he will go to hell for being gay, and then the man who says this lifts a heavy stone and smashes it down upon the outstretched hand of the wounded man. Normally I cannot watch torture on screen, but I had to watch this. Every adult viewer should watch this film and hold up a mirror to his or her face. Could I and would I want to do that to another being ? Ask that simple question and hope that it is no. Evil is a word I rarely use but the director of this painful film shows its face. A truly necessary cinema.
Perception
kosmasp21 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
When you hear the word animals, what do you associate with that? Do you have positive feelings about the word itself or do you connect it with behaviour (which would be a negative attribute most would attach to it then)? Is it fair to animals to even make the comparison if it is the latter? Animals after all allegedly are not able to empathize (I think that is not entirely true, but that's a different story). But one thing is for sure, they do not act out of malice, but either because of instincts and/or to protect themselves or others.
Humans do bad stuff - knowingly. You could argue about intoxication and all that - but there are also arguments that it only brings out the real you in some. Why do I venture into this territory though (no pun intended)? It is important to the movie to understand certain things. One of them being the title. And if you've seen it, you will understand even better.
This is not an easy movie to watch - at all. Even worse when you have people in the crowd who laugh at the most inappropriate moments (not that there are "lol" moments to begin with). I doubt many will have the opportunity to watch this on the big screen. But since it is shot in a "TV" format (as old schoolers would call it), there is no harm watching it at home. Actually distractions aside, it may be better considering all the things that have to sink in, after you watch the movie.
A movie with a lot of long shots, very little editing and almost feels like a documentary. There may be flaws (like glimpses into the camera in the first section), but nothing that is too distracting or should be bothering you - there are many other things in here that should actually be bothering you. Human behaviour as mentioned. One comes early on - even not knowing a single thing about the movie (other than the title), when we get introduced to the main character and his interaction with a little boy, we can guess ... well we understand him and what he is.
Even more so when a woman comes in (crashing), taking the boy away. No explanation needed - we can rightfully assume why she does it and what her (unfounded) fears are. Again no need for the movie to explain it to us. We are smart enough as an audience to be ahead of the game.
Having said, it still is not a preparation of things to come. We get a small glimpse, but even that only briefly. And not the interaction itself. We see the end result as being send as a pic to a phone.
Why do people act like that? Why do they hide behind things like honor? Why are they so afraid, that it turns into something very ugly and physical? There is no excuse, there is arguably not even much in the sense of an "explanation". There is a sort of glimpse into another characters mind - but again, there is not much said. And some will understand earlier what is going on and some a bit later - but it is there ... and it can be seen. It was not what I initially thought his motivation was.
This is as tough to watch as anything - there have been "worse" movies when it comes to depiction of on screen ... let's call it mayhem or anarchy. You may disagree based on your use of those words, but I think they can be used to describe some of what is going on. None of which are to be laughed at - I was seriously considering calling a psychiatrist. I know this is just a movie - but it definitely does not feel like it is intended to make you react like that - almost cheering on the bad guys (or whatever you want to call them).
We are all humans - no matter our differences. It may be just wishful thinking, but if we don't accept that and respect others ... we are worse than animals! Way worse - and surely no pun intended.
Humans do bad stuff - knowingly. You could argue about intoxication and all that - but there are also arguments that it only brings out the real you in some. Why do I venture into this territory though (no pun intended)? It is important to the movie to understand certain things. One of them being the title. And if you've seen it, you will understand even better.
This is not an easy movie to watch - at all. Even worse when you have people in the crowd who laugh at the most inappropriate moments (not that there are "lol" moments to begin with). I doubt many will have the opportunity to watch this on the big screen. But since it is shot in a "TV" format (as old schoolers would call it), there is no harm watching it at home. Actually distractions aside, it may be better considering all the things that have to sink in, after you watch the movie.
A movie with a lot of long shots, very little editing and almost feels like a documentary. There may be flaws (like glimpses into the camera in the first section), but nothing that is too distracting or should be bothering you - there are many other things in here that should actually be bothering you. Human behaviour as mentioned. One comes early on - even not knowing a single thing about the movie (other than the title), when we get introduced to the main character and his interaction with a little boy, we can guess ... well we understand him and what he is.
Even more so when a woman comes in (crashing), taking the boy away. No explanation needed - we can rightfully assume why she does it and what her (unfounded) fears are. Again no need for the movie to explain it to us. We are smart enough as an audience to be ahead of the game.
Having said, it still is not a preparation of things to come. We get a small glimpse, but even that only briefly. And not the interaction itself. We see the end result as being send as a pic to a phone.
Why do people act like that? Why do they hide behind things like honor? Why are they so afraid, that it turns into something very ugly and physical? There is no excuse, there is arguably not even much in the sense of an "explanation". There is a sort of glimpse into another characters mind - but again, there is not much said. And some will understand earlier what is going on and some a bit later - but it is there ... and it can be seen. It was not what I initially thought his motivation was.
This is as tough to watch as anything - there have been "worse" movies when it comes to depiction of on screen ... let's call it mayhem or anarchy. You may disagree based on your use of those words, but I think they can be used to describe some of what is going on. None of which are to be laughed at - I was seriously considering calling a psychiatrist. I know this is just a movie - but it definitely does not feel like it is intended to make you react like that - almost cheering on the bad guys (or whatever you want to call them).
We are all humans - no matter our differences. It may be just wishful thinking, but if we don't accept that and respect others ... we are worse than animals! Way worse - and surely no pun intended.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
