redrobin62-321-207311 I don't get why this movie is referred to as being black comedy. There's nothing funny in this film. In fact, the movie had me on the edge of my seat for so long I felt like I was paralyzed. Never had a film instill this much fear in me except for the night vision scene in "Silence of the Lambs."I gave it a high ranking because it created a deeply visceral response in me where few films have. I think I was sweating just to get through this film, and was finally relieved when it did end. It was like my heart was going to jump out of my chest at any time. Man, this movie was suspenseful.What's interesting is "Man Bites Dog" was accomplished on a shoe- string budget by college film students. The reason I'd acquired the movie in the first place is because it was banned in something like 21 countries. I loved banned films because, as it turns out, what's bad for "normal" viewers is good for me. Other banned films I've enjoyed were "Baise Moi," "Cannibal," "Cannibal Holocaust," "I Spit On Your Grave," etc.

capone666 Man Bites DogThe problem with video recording your murders in the 1990s was no online ad revenue.So it's hard to understand why the serial killer in this black comedy would do it.With a film crew in tow, charismatic sociopath Ben (Benoît Poelvoorde) goes about his day-to- day, detailing in-depth for the cameras the finer points of slaying strangers. He demonstrates his barbaric methods as well.While they are passive observers at first, the film crew soon help Ben restrain and dispose of his random victims. As such, they become collateral damage when someone target's Ben for revenge.A pioneer of the found footage sub-genre, this 1992 satire from Belgium takes the mockumentary style in a very dark direction. By blending off-kilter comedy with sadistic cruelty, this NC-17 rated cult hit is jarring in ways few horror movies are. Incidentally, taping your carnage will show jurors just how hot you use to look.Green Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca

marcoklaue I consider it a brilliant film, but also very very disturbing. I'd sooner warn people about it than recommend it, even though it's an amazing achievement. So, for what it's worth, here's my viewing experience: I heard about this film and was immediately hooked on the absurd idea of a serial killer, on the loose, as a willing documentary subject. I also heard that it was pitch-black comedy, and a commentary on violence, society, media, etc. -- blurring the lines between observing and becoming an accomplice and whatnot.Well, in the first two acts it certainly delivers on the absurdity and the black comedy. Both Ben and the filmmakers are as matter-of-fact about his prolific killing as if it were a documentary about urban architecture, and even in the middle of his murderous acts he remains an engaging conversationalist with all sorts of attributes our culture values: extroversion, confidence, charm, a sense of humor, and fairly informed views on diverse subjects. The juxtapositions are disturbingly hilarious. He laments that African immigrants like the one he just shot don't have equal opportunities in this racist society, or that the color and layout of a certain housing project encourages violence and other social evils. He kills an entire family in their home, then reflects on the waste of human life and how there "should be a law" against that sort of thing. He explains a lot of aspects of his trade (like how to dispose of bodies and which victims are most likely to carry money), but leaves other elements in the dark. He first seems like a murderous variety of the common robber, but then plenty of killings seem to have no material motive at all, while others are clashes with rival killers (the absurdity reaches meta-levels at some points). I was shocked by the violence and I was also laughing, and I was feeling uneasy about that.Many reviews talk about how the documentary crew moves from "observers" to "accomplices", but any court of law would already consider them "accomplices" within one minute of the film starting, so that development didn't register so much to me. Sure they started taking a more active part in the carnage, but this wasn't something I considered an unexpected development.What did register to me was the shift somewhere in the third act. Suddenly I was no longer watching a dark comedy. The violence escalates to a nasty scene that I couldn't even watch, and that left me disturbed and depressed for days. It's like the movie finally decided to show me what I was looking at and say, "well, are you still laughing? Are you?" And I realized: what was there about Ben that was engaging? Even his charming ways among his friends and family were just socially acceptable methods of getting his way and remaining the center of attention, just like killing people and starring in documentaries.So among the unexpected things I found in this film was a chillingly believable portrait of a textbook sociopath. (The scary thing is that I know someone in my neighborhood who fits that profile as well.)The film is brilliant and disturbing. Proceed at your own risk.

udoricht I can't believe that some people consider it as a cult movie.One guy (serial killer and psychopath) very talkative, kills and destroys anything he wants to for a pleasure and tried to find out the purpose of his behavior in the front of the camera that follows him. This is very cheap movie without any sense. The main protagonist thinks he is smart and keep talking about his life while killing other people, robs their money and throws corpses over some kind of bridge while explaining the technique.In the end he got killed for causing troubles to the other gangsters.The crew that follows his crime and record it is sick and dumb too and off course got killed too.Is this kind of a movie that you wanted to see? Just sickness.