User reviews

Borgman is not a vagabond or a homeless, but the evil, the Antichrist itself. He emerges from under the ground with his followers when the local priest and some helpers try to destroy them. They manage to escape and set out on a journey to capture new souls. Borgman is not interested in money or wealth, not interested in seducing women or hurting children. He could get it all if only he wanted to. His only interest is to bring out the evil residing in all humans - men, women, children. He manipulates, sedates or kills people when it is necessary, but it is not a goal, just a tool for him. When he finds a potential follower, he marks him or her with a stigma on their backs. He does a perfect job with an upper-class family turning the family members, the babysitter and her boyfriend against each other, uncovering their worst thoughts and desires. Borgman ends up by capturing new followers, and abandons the beautiful house by cleaning up any traces of his terrible deeds. The movie is surrealistic, full of symbols related to the Bible, and lightened up with lots of spooky humor. It does have a clear plot and a full ending, and undoubtedly makes one wonder about his/her own inner dark side.

One of the best films of the Philadelphia Film Festival, Borgman is a hilarious, darkly satirical, mysterious, sexy, fascinating, and surreal allegory for social upheaval.

In the beginning, there was armed men looking to kill underground hobos. We will never find out why they want to kill them or why the hobos are underground (or why the hobos have nice cellphones). One of them, Camiel Borgman, escapes and warns his friends. He washes himself at a gas station and begins wandering down an extremely affluent street with the intention of getting a proper bath in one of them, simply by asking at the front door. One house in particular strikes his fancy, and he begins a slow process of worming his way into the household and the lives of everyone who lives there.

But that's when things get REALLY strange.

This film is destined for hopefully a good deal of international attention in the art-house circuit due to its exceptional storytelling, unpredictability and very weird plot.

With the matter-of-fact way it presents absurd goings-on, it reminded me of Dogtooth a little.

I think it's better than parasite though. And more dark and twisted for sure.

Weird and unnerving are a couple words which accurately describe the experience that is watching this film. What the film means is anyone's guess, and nothing is really spelled out or explained. This actually is a good thing, though, because the viewer can take away from it what they want. The story is about a vagrant named Borgman who insinuates himself into this affluent family's home and slowly makes life a living hell for them. The overall tone of the film is one of unease, mystery and black humor, peppered with a shock every now and then. There are several scenes which may stick with you long after finishing it, and there are a few that are still with me now. Comparing this to anything else is futile, except that if you like weird, disturbing movies (like I do), then you will probably love this. From a quality standpoint, everything is well-shot and all of the actors, including the children, give good performances as far as I can tell (Dutch isn't a language I speak). The tone of the film is also set very well by the score, which is off-kilter and dissonant. Since it is best to go into this film with as little information as possible, I'll end here. Suffice it to say, if you're brave enough to give this a try, you might end up liking it as I did.

Borgman is queer piece of cinema, challenging right form the off with the opening scenes of pursuit which point in a certain direction, but be prepared for your feelings to change as the story progresses. Writer / director Alex van Warmerdam's film bars very few holds, and yet it does not sensationalise increasingly troubling and occasionally brutal events, presenting them in a frank and open way, inviting the viewer to judge the participants and their respective fates. You would do well to prepare yourself to feel little sympathy for any of the characters, and yet there is something compelling about the spartan direction and the economy of the performances that will hold your attention to the end. Jan Bijvoet as the titular Camiel Borgman and Hadewych Minis as Marina are stand-outs, and deserve to be seen by a wider audience. One possible conclusion is that Warmerdam's script presents a black-and-white position in reaching a verdict, but in reality there are Lynchian levels of grey and plenty of scope for interpretation over a glass of wine (or two) afterwards. Well worth seeking out for those of a less delicate sensibility.

'Borgman' tells the story of a drifter (Jan Bijvoet) that slowly but suddenly takes control of the lives of a young, wealthy family living in a beautiful mansion somewhere in the Netherlands. The movie begins with a scene in a forest, where Borgman, i.e. the drifter, and some of his associates are chased from their underground hiding places by a group of holy workers (lead by the-always-inspiring Pierre Bokma). Soon after their escape, Borgman alone seemingly randomly knocks on the doors of the houses of very wealthy people, asking if he can use bathing facilities in their house. In attempt to do good after a brutal beating by her husband (Jeroen Perceval), Marina (Hadewijch Minis) helps Borgman by giving him temporary shelter in the garden shed. That was all that the intimidating but darkly intriguing character of Borgman needed to unfold his diabolical plans...

Although Borgman is a layered surrealistic film, and probably therefore sometimes slow and hard to understand, its message is clear and the story is continuously compelling. Especially intriguing are the biblical aspects, which are always subtly present in the background, and which give the film a dark, tense character. Not being a religious person, the movie does trigger an interest in the spiritual, or better, meta-ethics, which won't leave you alone for several days afyer having watched it. The excellent performances of Jan Bijvoet and Hadewijch Minis are crucial in delivering the very strong script.

I highly recommend this film to anyone who seeks a tense thriller. Because, aside from the absurdist aspects, from start to the end the movie is very exciting.

8/10

This film seemed to come out of nowhere, similar to the way Camille Borgman did. I am a long time fan of the horror/dark drama genre but a new member to IMDb. with that being said, I absolutely loved this film. I loved the darkness to Camille. What was with him living in the ground though? The movie never fell back on that fact nor did it have an explanation for it. I wouldn't say the viewing nature of this film is horror, but the concepts that the film holds are horror. The ideas are extremely dark and the violence is extreme. This is an atmospheric movie that sets quite the mood. It had me thinking about it for a few days after seeing it. It's one of the better movies I've seen this past year

All movie is like begining and end of it. No explanation ,not shows why,who are they,,just wasting time .

Before writing this review read some other reviews written here. Some of them clarified some of the movie's symbolism, which was useful for me as I felt rather confused when the movie unfolded. I do like surrealistic movies now and then but the second part of the movie and the ending left an unsatisfactory feeling. Besides being unable to really grasp the symbolism the movie started to feel predictable after a while. Never did it felt like Borgman's intentions could be stopped. After the first cracks appeared it was obvious that the castle would crumble. By not being able to connect to the victims I couldn't really care too much about it. I did love the acting and the whole atmosphere of the movie. What made it even more memorable was that I am Dutch myself. The language that was used sounded very archaic at times. As a viewing experience a mixed bag overall but possibly worth watching a second time after reading some more interpretation.

This is a dark and at the same time irresistible funny movie about them and us, inside and outside, reality versus imagination. It's about somewhat strangely organized hobo's who are invading a posh house and taking over a family. It's a great, great movie, with a pitch perfect production and a deeply disturbing - and therefore significant and meaningful - message. Every viewer will make up his own story about what takes place in the house that is at the central stage, and in the dark woods that surround it, but in the end it's like a Rembrandt: deep and dark with some light touches that make you laugh and remember what art and humanity are all about: to overcome fear.What's extremely good about this movie is that it will make your film brain spin: what's going to happen next?

It is a metaphor for our current state. A state of excellence and achievement is attained. But, there is a parasite who earns nothing on it's own, just steals from more perfect creatures.

The Male of the house sees it right away and eradicates it. As it is crawling away to find a weaker opening, his know it all, who has never accomplished anything but lay down and spread, sneaks it back in and works with the malignancy to destroy everything they have. Haven't finished, but I hope she ends up face down in the pond.

The films of Alex an Warmerdam are unique, and "Borgman" is no exception. Nevertheless it is possible to find some recurring themes and make comparisons with other movies.

A recurring theme is for example the dysfunctional family, which can be seen already in his debut as the director of a feature length film "Abel" (1986). In "Abel" however the disruption comes from within, as is already obvious in the dinner scene at the opening of the movie. Some interpretations of "Able" may see Zus (Annet Malherbe) as a disruptive force from outside, but to me this interpretation is a little bit far fetched.

In "Borgman" the disruption comes clearly from the outside in the form of the title character played by Jan Bijvoet. The next questions are who is Borgman and what are his motives?

These questions are not easy to answer in "Borgman". Take for example "Cape Fear" (1991, Martin Scorsese). Also in this film there is an outsider (Max Cady played by Robert de Niro) exposing the hypocrisy in a middle class family. This outsider has however obvious reasons for revenge. Borgman does not have these reasons. Yes the man of the couple is very aggressive at the first meeting, but this first meeting takes place on the initiative of Borgman. Before this meeting they didn't know each other.

A film where the motive of the outsider is equally unclear is "Teorema" (1968, Pier Paolo Pasolini). Whatever the motives of this "visitor" (Terence Stamp) are, his deeds are much nicer.

Right at the beginning I got my suspicions about the Borgman character when he is being hunted fanatically by some villagers. Where does the hatred of these villagers come from? We will never know because we will see these villagers never again, but with the film progressing we will see that Borgman doesn't bode well.

Last but not least I will make a comparison with "Invasion of the body snatchers" (1956, Don Siegel). At first sight this film seems far removed from "Borgman", but let's not forget about the Biblical message with which Borgman opens ("And they came down to the earth to strengthen their ranks"). This directly gives the movie something extra terrestrial. This extra terrestrial element is reinforced by metamorphosis (scenes with greyhounds), strange scars on the back of Borgman and his companiens and mind control.

Borgman is able to guide the dreams of the wife of the couple by sitting naked on her body when she sleeps. These images are both very strange, very strong and very discomforting.

All in all "Borgman" is a very unfathomable movie, even for van Warmerdam standards. For some this will be a recommendation. For me the film did a very great demand on my ability to come up with my own interpretation.

I, as a Dutch person am completely devastated that our country was capable of making this 'pile of junk' (putting it lightly). Many viewers are with me (seeing the comments), that it has an exciting build-up and makes the viewer want to see more in the beginning. All of the sudden all kinds of crazy 'events' keep happening and you think you are in for a thrilling movie. But no, Nothing happens. I've had moments when watching some movies seemed like it was a waste of time, but this one takes the cake.

If I remember correctly the script writer of this movie said that the plot wasn't meant to be logical or anything. It was just art. Well mr. moviemaker, you failed.

If you hated Sharknado, Butterfly Effect 2, Dumb and Dumber to, you name it what is considered questionable or horrific.... Do yourself a favor. This is not great Cinema what other users are trying to convince you of.

Art belongs in the museum. This is Dutch over-subsidized 'look at me im quasi smart' garbage. I am dead ******* serious.