The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
607 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
much more than a psychological thriller
methodman-702524 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Saying 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..
378 out of 562 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
SeanDTheFilmMaker16 October 2018
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"
30 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Killing of a Sacred Deer Review
maurice_yacowar8 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It 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.
255 out of 403 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Cold, stilted and irritatingly obtuse
Deathstryke3 December 2017
I went into "The Killing of a Sacred Deer" knowing that it was based on an ancient Greek tragedy which I had not read and that the trailer was ...pretty weird. So I was braced for something more auteur and symbolic that I would have to retrospectively interpret and extract meaning from, not something immediately tangible or obvious.

However, try as I might, there was not one meaningful thing I could extract from this ponderous, drawn out mess of a film. I am not familiar with Yorgos Lanthimos's previous work -I have not seen the Lobster- but I'm told TKOASD is very much in keeping with his stylistic quirks; Emotionally vacant, surrealist art installations masquerading as film.

A brief, spoiler-free summary of the plot: A heart surgeon, his wife and two children are befriended/stalked by a mysterious teenager who's strange mannerisms belie a dark, twisted plan and a destructive supernatural power. The plot and its fantastical leanings didn't bother me. What did bother me was the awkward execution.

The cast of one dimensional archetypes all ramble their lines in a robotic manner, their eyes fixed in a detached, glacial stare. It is impossible to connect with any of them on an emotional level, even when the stakes rise and certain characters are met with horrific choices, the focus seems to be less about conveying the emotional depth that a real person might plunge to in those circumstances, and more about favoring the artifice of the shot. Barry Keoghan's Martin -the malevolent teenager stalking the family- is perhaps the only character served well by this robotic approach. His monotone aloofness, combined with his shifty vacant eyes make him feel all the more disturbing and unpredictable.

Colin Farrell on the other hand, gives one of the most stultifying performances of his career. His character, Stephen, a heart surgeon and father of two, is so utterly devoid of pathos, employing his frowny face and flat middle-class Dublin cadence to every line, he fails to make Stephen believable or likable, even when he's blubbering snot all over himself in one incongruously candid scene, it feels artificial and contrived, as in the next scene he goes right back to being a cold, miserable android again.

Nicole Kidman does a better job with her material as Stephen's wife, at least her delivery is the least morose of the lot, but her performance is still frustratingly restricted in places where it should be amplified, making her mostly unsympathetic.

Stephen's children, the innocent victims of Martin's vengeful plot, should surely have some element of likability if we are to feel any fear for their predicament, but alas they too are passive, unfeeling robots who fail to engage.

The film instead relies on gimmicky mechanics to convey tension and dread where the stolid acting falls short. There are dozens of shots where the camera slowly zooms down long corridors or empty rooms, accompanied by screechy, dissonant sound effects as if trying to convince you that the dreary banality of what's unfolding on screen is actually threatening and you should be very afraid.

The film is also full of pointlessly weird scenarios and obtuse dialogue that seem to be there solely for the purpose of making the viewer squirm uncomfortably. There are many bizarre references to menstruation and armpit hair, a pointless sex scene involving a nude Nicole Kidman pretending to be anesthetized so her pervert husband can get it up, and one particularly risible scene where Colin Farrell confesses to his young son that when he was a small boy, he happened upon his sleeping father and masturbated him until "The bed sheets were covered in sperm".

The nonsense continues at a creeping pace until the under-whelming, implausible climax, which feels a poor reward for enduring what was essentially a 30 minute short film stretched into two hours. I don't think any amount of retrospective research on "Iphigenia in Aulis" will change my rating. One of the worst films of 2017.
541 out of 884 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's not "weird" just to be weird, It's trying to show us something discomforting, that conventional movies CAN'T.
Gregor_814 January 2018
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.
144 out of 230 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Easy film...NOT!
sektoras-5370418 December 2017
I 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 :) !
224 out of 389 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What a mess, this film could not connect with the audience
sven-koehler6 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER: First things first: I loved The Lobster. The Lobster was a comedy, sort of, and when the characters spoke with a very monotone voice and said and did things that normal people wouldn't do, that added to the comedy and it was a pleasure to watch that movie.

Now, this movie is "The Lobster 2" in the sense that people still speak with a very monotone voice and say things they normally wouldn't. For example, during small talk at some party, the mother just casually mentions that her daughter had her first period. The daughter herself mentions that to a boy she just met later on in the movie. That resulted in the audience laughing at the movie.

This is not a comedy. It is also not a horror movie. This is a drama or thriller with strong religious undertones. It is a mixture between the Binding of Isaac and the story of Job. Whatever supernatural being is responsible for punishing the two kids has a moral best described as "an eye for an eye". Something that I thought humanity would have overcome within the last 2000 years. This picture is completed by the "happy end", where the father simply kills one member of his family. This actually works in the sense that the punishment stops.

This doesn't mix well with the bits that are (unintentionally?) funny. In fact, these bits (like the talk about her first period) doesn't add anything to the story.

For me and the audience I was with, the movie failed. People left the cinema. I stayed, cause I wanted to give it a chance. But I was disappointed anyway.
235 out of 421 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An outstanding film that I'll never want to see again
bottomsgaming29 November 2017
Yorgos 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.
61 out of 103 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Emperor Has No Clothes, This Movie is Extremely Ugly and Boring
CANpatbuck36645 February 2018
This is one of those movies I have nothing nice to say about. The only thing I'll hand this movie is that I don't want to blame the actors/actresses. They've all shown that they have talent and I believe they were all instructed to act in such a robotic and monotone style. This obviously backfired as I couldn't attach myself to their characters because of it but I get the intention. My hope is that they all bounce back soon with other more worthwhile projects.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer is filmed in a deliberately cold and sterile way. There are plenty of distant shots when characters are walking down hallways, all the dialogue is delivered without any kind of inflection and the final moments lack any kind of feeling. Again, this wasn't done by accident and I understand that it might just being going over my head. But the trade-off with this style is that it sucks any kind of emotional investment out of the movie. This bleeds over into the characters who are all jerks and terrible people. I wasn't rooting for anyone by the end of the movie. Steven is too arrogant to like; his children and his wife are content to stab each other in the back as long as it suits their best interest. Martin's plan is so ruthless that you can't root for him as the villain (this is also compounded by his complete lack of personality). This is an ugly movie about ugly people in an ugly situation. I get that's the point but if that's the case, why should I enjoy this movie?

The next thing is that this movie has very little plot to speak of. There is the mystery of how Martin is doing this (there is no resolution about that) but otherwise, the only other question posed is answered at the halfway point. There isn't anything else! If you're going to strip any emotional resonance from the movie or refuse to give me anyone to root for, I need an intriguing plot to hold my interest. Sadly, this was just one more thing the movie lacks.

What this movie relies on is the dialogue and that aspect doesn't pick up the slack. Sure, there are some minor exchanges that are interesting but there isn't any deeper meaning revealed through these characters interacting with one another. It often gets repetitive (there are at least a couple of scenes where Steven and Anna lecture the kids about not doing their chores) or downright bizarre (Steven's story of childhood masturbation was icky). It just failed to hold my attention (again the fact its delivered so coldly didn't' help) and it was just something else that was disappointing.

This movie joins A Ghost Story and Mother! In a category of 2017 films that critics adored and I ended up hating. I will say that like those movies, there was a clear vision of what they wanted, and they achieved it. Yorgos Lanthimos had something specific in mind and was more concerned about bringing his vision to life than whether the audience would get it. As much as defenders of this movie would say "well you're not the target audience", I'm open to trying new and different types of movies and I don't need to make concessions to an awful movie because they didn't make it with me in mind. I was repulsed by this movie for much of the running time. My hopes that it would get better when we got further into the plot were deflated like a balloon running out of air. Unless you're a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos' previous work (I haven't seen The Lobster, maybe its good?) or you're dying to see something off-kilter and deliberately hard to understand, do not see this movie.
140 out of 253 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Weird, Intriguing but Absolutely Disappointing and Overrated
claudio_carvalho15 December 2017
The renowned heart surgeon Steven Murphy (Colin Farrell) is married with Dr. Anna Murphy (Nicole Kidman) with two children, the young teenager Kim (Raffey Cassidy) and the boy Bob (Sunny Suljic) that are their pride and joy. He works with the anesthetist Matthew (Bill Camp) and recently he is dedicating attention to the teenager Martin (Barry Keoghan), whose father died in a surgery. Steven brings Martin to meet his family and the teenager invites him to have dinner at his home with his mother (Alicia Silverstone), who harasses Steven. He rejects and on the next day, Bob gets sick without walking. Steven and Anna bring Bob to the hospital and after a complete checkup, the doctors do not find any problem with the boy. Soon Martin meets Steven and tells that he killed his father; now he has to kill Anna or Kim or Bob; otherwise they will all get sick and die. Who is Martin?

"The Killing of a Sacred Deer" is a weird, intriguing but absolutely disappointing and overrated film. The plot and the performances are cold, without heart, and has scenes absolutely unnecessary, like Anna masturbating Matthew in the car or the cameo of Alicia Silverstone. However, the screenplay holds the attention of the viewer that expects the clarification of the mystery. Unfortunatelly the conclusion is awful without any explanation for what is happening or who Martin is or has done. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): Not Available
182 out of 336 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Failed myth adaptation
kdziolak-3357420 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Myths were created to help human build and understand the model of surrounding world. 'The Killing of Sacred Deer' is too artistic to bother.

It builds a dent in reality in which a lower deity (surgeon) accidentally kills father of a greater one. While making people believe that the characters are somewhat real, it combines the mythical sacrifice of Iphigenia with cliché of train dilemma (kill 3 people by inaction or pull a lever and decide who dies). Unfortunately the setting is so artificial that the movie completely fails to deliver a point and decides to abort any attempts of explanation leaving viewers in a limbo.

It's gripping, but completely dry upon closer examination. 'The Saw' was more believable than TKoSD. Viewers can admire a glimpse of naked Nicole Kidman for this suffering though!

Acting: 7 Plot: 2 Production: 7
151 out of 276 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
First time writing a review, I just felt obligated to do it
salemarqsh29 November 2017

If you're not one of those "movie expert" wannabes, who say bs like "This is sensational piece of art" when they don't even understand a movie, just to be different from others, and if you're not a masochist - DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON THIS MOVIE. I feel real mental pain after watching 122 minutes of this thing. It makes no sense whatsoever. Only decent thing about this movie is acting, but the stupidity, that is the story, is easily overshadowing it. If you hate someone very much, recommend them this "masterpiece" and enjoy yourself knowing that it's the worst thing you could do to make their life miserable.
413 out of 806 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Iphigenia in Aulis
Cineanalyst2 December 2018
What 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).
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretentious and terribly directed.
chrislloyd195825 November 2017
OK, I get the Greek mythology link in the title. That is pretentious for a start. But the film is completely confusing. Is it a horror, a thriller, a mystery? Are there special powers involved? Is the main character himself insane and much of the action his imagination? There are no hints at all. The characters are all brain dead. Hardly a meaningful statement or emotional reaction over 120 minutes. Close to the worst film I have ever seen. And at the ending will leave you completely unsatisfied.
230 out of 469 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The script-writer must have been about as intellectual as a lobotomized chicken.
sanya-panova-932-68933210 November 2017
Perpetually early for the movies, I stand for a few moments in the cinema hall, overwhelmed with the crowd that forms a (typically British) queue at the ticket box. It is Halloween and this movie's trailer made it seem like the right choice for a spooky night. There is some kind of buzz in the air when the screening begins. A few moments later...happy chatter and munching are gone, everyone is focused, trying to figure out what the story-line is all about, what the GBP 12 for an adult ticket + GBP 7 for popcorn and coke went for.. a tragedy? No, a roadkill! No amount of expensive equipment can make up for the lack of plot! It just doesn't make sense... at all! Any of it! "But it had scored so well on IMDb!" - whines someone from the back row and I can feel their pain... it is everyone's pain... A collaborative exhaling in short puffs! What.a.waste.of.time! Lights are up as the movie ends... No-one's getting ready to leave - stuck in their seats people look around, then look at the screen again, expecting some scenes after the credits to put the whole movie into a different perspective, making it worth watching at least... To no avail.
266 out of 557 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
berkman19691 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I would like to keep it as short as possible:

It was the worst Nicole Kidman movie I ever watched.

My wife and I went to watch it with great pleasure as we are both Nicole Kidman fans and admirer her previous movies.

The story, progress and ending were totally absurd. There were many sexual scenes which are not necessary and not related with the story.

She should not accepted such a bad scenario...

It was totally lost of 122 minutes of my life.
125 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
jmaccabe29 November 2017
Really cross that I wasted the last 2 hours watching this self-absorbed nonsensical yet depressing drivel. Ironically, and equally annoyingly, I now have to write some meaningless nonsense myself in order to get to the minimum word count to submit the review. What, still not enough text? What more can I say? The film is not worth writing about which is why my review was so short. I wish I had done my tax return instead, it would have been more enjoyable and I would not still have my tax return to do. To sum up, my advice is, don't watch the film because it is awful.
131 out of 265 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
rivelo13 December 2017
Im shocked how Nicole Kidman and Collin Farrel Worked in this terrible movie. I love psychological thriller but this is not one of them is just bad ( trying my best to control myself and not saying any bad words ) The kid ( the evil one ) he is super annoying , terrible acting . the ending is just pathetic the whole story and characters doesn't seem real at all. their behavior is super forced and acted looks like a mexican telenovela or even worse because at least mexican telenovelas has action and drama. please don't waste your time on this is just bad bad !!!!!
123 out of 248 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Even worse than The Lobster
BruceB930 October 2017
If you're a fan of The Lobster then you'll probably love this. I'm not so when into this with reservations. My wife and I hated it. At the end of the movie we looked at each other and said "what was that all about". As far as I can see the movie had no point and to have your actors be as stilted and wooden as they possibly could be really made it worse. Yes I know it was a revenge story but the characters were so boring it made it a real slog to get through. As I said to my wife while I usually like to adhere to the 3 strikes and you're out in this case 2 is more than enough to keep me from ever seeing one if his movies again regardless of how many critics think it's wonderful.
166 out of 341 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dont waste your time on the worst movie! You can't get it back!
igfatoy14 December 2017
This movie was very disturbing that didn't have much of a plot line. It would play eerie music throughout the entire movie at parts that weren't even scary. The movie would jump from one thing to another. It was disorganized. Te characters acted inhuman and everything was said in a blunt way. The wasn't much acting nor any emotion.
141 out of 287 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Masturbatory obsessed delusions of a damaged brain
omendata15 December 2017
Pretentious garbage like this really gets my goat as do all the so much more intelligent than us reviewers who "GET IT" and disparage others who dont know of the Greek legend of Iphigenia of which the story is meant to be based on I believe and just say the truth and say "its boring" Like the reviewers who have posted paragraphs of existential bullshit and hidden meanings...You simply cant polish a turd!

The director is obviously some kind of sex pervert or deviant obsessed with "wanking" of various kinds , foot fetishism and pseudo-erotocism so my question is why didnt he just do the honest thing and make a porno!

The music is jarring in the extreme as is the whole thing; its so bizarre that the audience were laughing at the most inappropriate times - the acting i couldnt actually make out if it was bad or was meant to be so wooden at times for effect (I give the benefit of doubt and surmise the latter) - its was as if two robots were speaking at each other in many scenes.

I suppose its like everything these days - like art itself - in my mind if anyone can make it like Tracy Emmins garbage they call art then it really isnt art - if you can paint a Jack Vetriano or a Turner then it is art and anyone could have made this but in the modern world the idea of shocking the viewer seems to be what defines art, television, cinema etc. All you need to do is crap on a piece of paper and it could be called art by the arty farty up their own kazoo types that inhabit the crevices of IMDB!

The world is now so full of people who know the price of everything but the value of nothing and this director exemplifies this with this turgid, pretentious bag of ordure!
139 out of 284 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos continues to befuddle and anger audiences in attempting to become a new M.Night Shamalan (um, not a good thing at all)
george.schmidt19 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER (2017) * Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Barry Keoghan, Raffey Cassidy, Sunny Suljic, Bill Camp, Alicia Silverstone. Odd, strange and frankly taxing on the nerves sci-fi drama about the very wrong relationship between a teenage loner (creepy as f*** Keoghan) who gloms onto the cardiologist (Farrell in a truly one-note you wanna slap so-hard turn) who was responsible in the death of his father on the operating table unbeknownst to the doctor (at first) until it is revealed that the fate of his family will suffer the wrath of the mysterious boy. Filmmaker Yorgos Lanthimos - who co-wrote the frustrating screenplay with Efthymis Filippou - continues to befuddle and anger audiences in attempting to become a new M.Night Shamalan (um, not a good thing at all) - with impossible silent situations and moments where you want to scream at the screen "Are you ****ing kidding me?!!?" An attempt at a parable from the darkest recesses of The Twlight Zone comes off more as a metaphor of ego and revenge.
120 out of 244 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sadly it is waste of resources!
sukrancetik514 December 2017
The director may be thinking that an eye for an eye is the only solution to all problems or may be life is not profound to have it more deeper understandings any how in the end results is a shallow production that can not go beyond cliché. I gave two star only for the beauty of cinematography for getting really good pictures. So well done to creative director and art director. But if you consider the waste of resources it is even a lot for this film. I am very sorry for all the time and the money spend to this film during production. Surely it could be used for a much better purposes.
107 out of 216 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Total waste of time
fewsternoble29 December 2017
I really don't know where to begin with this, it's such a BAD movie. The acting is, well, wierd from the off, like they are reading from a book, literally. I thought that with the stars in this movie and the ratings it received it would be a sure fire hit in our household. How wrong i was, i really don't know what the other reviewers of this were thinking, to give this a 7 or 8 you must of seen another movie by mistake. After and hour i thought we should be watching something else but, the wife said "no" lets stick with it, it may be good. At the end i asked her what she thought, "absolute rubbish". This isnt a classic in any way, shape, or form, please please please stay away, it is definately 2 hours you won't get back.
71 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
yep, its one of those where u can only shake your head
dwuksta14 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Not really a fan of Kidman, and this movie is a great example why, I think she donned her Stepford Wive's persona for this one...again. A heart surgeon has secret meetings with a teenage boy after unsuccessfully operating on his father. The boy somehow makes the Dr's whole family sick as an act of revenge for drinking on the job, Dr must choose which family member to sacrifice...which he does, randomly. During the film, these's lots of hidden messages in the imagery that you must decipher, and most likely will be attributed to the teenager being an incarnation of the devil, or a hundred other ways that it could be interpreted, of which the director will no doubt take credit for, more ambiguity the better for an artsy film, which is really means being too lazy to figure out a more plausible reason that these events could even be put on screen. The dots do not connect, the acting is definitely questionable, and the plot is just hot air, camera work is interesting, a lot of the placement is following the action, as if hovering from behind, similar to 'Birdman'. The film did have me interested in the outcome, I did want to know the reasoning behind all the sickness, and how he was able to predict it, but for a film to be worth watching, it must address it's central question, at least try and answer it, but it doesn't. So yeh it's an 'Art' film, because you have to decide yourself what it all meant, or be able to recount decades of cinematic references that the director was targeting to unravel all the hidden meaning, which may or may not lead to a logical ending. But me expecting a logical satisfying ending to a film (to which there will be no part 2) is no doubt looked upon as ignorant and docile to all the film noir aficionads's. But I felt ripped off after sitting through that, in a really classic 'film noir' way. I once watched a film where a guy took a crap on a wooden cross, and through the wonders of time lapse photography, a rose eventually grew out of the crap, that was at least slightly satisfying to endure, this one wasn't.
75 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed