MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

gmickel-75246 I suppose this review is more for American audiences as we are used to shock value and a huge ending compared to thinking and story telling. I admit, I was at a complete loss at the end of this movie until I read people from Europe and their reviews.I didn't laugh one time during it yet most of the reviews found humor in it. Just a culture difference and not in a bad way, I learn. I look at this film in a different way now. The depth to it. Kind of like in a way The Witch was subtle but I got it, this I didn't till later to an extent.The people who are from the Netherlands and such reviewed this in such a way that to Americans, read their reviews. I would of been completely lost without reading it. But makes sense after reading it.

Pozdnyshev I had heard about "Borgman" as being a movie about some guy, apparently a fallen angel, who slowly destroys an affluent family from within by sheer cunning plus a few little supernatural tricks like affecting their dreams. I happen to think that's pretty damned creepy, so I watched the movie.That's basically what happens in the movie, too, except the master "Borgman" guy (who looks like a cross between Max Von Sydow and Jethro Tull's Ian Anderson) has some help from some buddies of his who are just as evil and cunning as he is.He invites them in as gardeners after he manages to wrap the lady of the house around his finger by putting on a "poor abused tramp who hasn't had a wash" act. The thing is, though, is that I just don't buy the lady of the house coming to care about him as much as she did. I mean, she practically begs him to stay. For some reason I can believe that he can affect people's dreams, but the ease with which he gains total control of her makes it a little lame. It's like he's almost omnipotent, so there's too little conflict. Like pitting Professor X versus, I dunno, Randy Quaid.The same goes for when one of his buddies (Pascal) transforms the house nanny from a sweet, kind of airheaded young woman into a vicious shrew who suddenly hates her boyfriend and fawningly loves Pascal. I don't know; it's like, I know they're fallen angels and all, or at least one of them is. But it's just not as interesting when they have these superhuman powers of manipulation. Dude even Jim Jones would have to take at least a few days plus a position of esteem -- not a damn gardener living in a shed -- to completely turn someone to their will.The movie is still very well-made, I just couldn't buy these awesome powers the Borgmen had. And oh yeah, they go around murdering people in broad daylight without the police being on to them at all, which also made the movie more boring than disturbing. Like, they go to the family doctor's office and just shoot him in the head without even a silencer. I guess their Deus Ex Machina Fallen Angel powers kept the police from caring about it.Without giving away too much, the Borgmen eventually wind up triumphant. This left me with the question, "what was the point?" Not the point the Borgmen had of recruiting new members, I got that. No, it's like, what was the point of this movie? What's it trying to say? "Here, watch these imaginary fallen angels ruin a family for two hours"? Without a real-world analog to really link these events to, it ultimately comes across as an extremely well-crafted but kinda lightweight flick.

iivanita Life does not forgive mistakes and some things look like inevitable. This is brilliant story, symbolic as it can be, which may not be easy to understand and maybe a bit daunting but it will keep you interested in the plot till the very end and the messages it brings are numerous and life saving: *the symbol of opening the door to a stranger and not being able to set boundaries, feeling guilty that we owe something to a stranger that never stops and turns into unexpected set of events. *we all are recognized by our deeds, not by one off events, the father who feeds 3 children, or poor guy who begs for shelter, and asks every day more, and never gives, only asks further....and the best ever message of the film is the energy of being close to negativity, or evil may destroy us no matter how smart we are, if we don't flock together, those who are better organized, smarter will win over, its the inevitability of life laws. no mistake is being forgiven, being naive is certainly one of them.In the end it makes you think if life really is simplistic black and white picture, if you believe in the God as the truth, and Evil as the ultimate lie then it is so. And humans are all this in between those extremes.

cheezburgerz "...and they descended upon the earth to strengthen their ranks." -opening quote, BorgmanCamiel Borgman is a greater demon of hell. His supposed name is actually his title; his real name is given at the beginning of the movie "Anton Breskens" which is believed to be a lie in an attempt to gain admittance to the house. His real name will be important later. The etymology of 'Camiel' is 'acolyte' and 'Borgman' is 'a man who takes toll/a landlord'. So his title is 'Acolyte Landlord' which means he's collecting tolls, or souls, for another (i.e. Satan). Mark 5:9: "My name is Legion, for we are many", the reference drawn from the play towards the end of the movie, the signs reading "I am" and "We are". Camiel's sole purpose is to build his legion of minions, represented by his friends who will do anything to seek his "favor", his hounds of hell ushering in his reign (but not too early!), and the children and young babysitter of the family who serves as Camiel's coveted converts-to-be (children only, no adults). Once they "drink the Kool-Aid", a sign of ultimate obedience towards Camiel's demonic sovereignty, their backs are branded by the mark of Satan, which he also bears. Camiel is a playful demon, like that of an alp or incubus (see wikipedia). If Camiel can't play, he gets bored and goes somewhere else. When he is playing, it is in some form of the 7 deadly sins of Christianity: wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. In a general sense, the movie is a depiction of these sins at work. They are evident at the beginning where a priest employs wrath to hunt down Camiel and then shortly thereafter when the husband beats Camiel to a pulp (through a combination of pride and wrath). Later in the movie, Isobel employs wrath on the gardener. Throughout Borgman, the wife gradually takes to Camiel via envy, exhibits gluttony towards alcohol, and eventually lust towards Camiel and wrath towards her husband. The children are afflicted with sloth after drinking the orange liquid. The husband is a constant victim of greed in trying to steal his boss's company. The middle-aged man lusts after the babysitter. (Etc.) At the center of all these sins is Camiel, either directly or indirectly influencing the actions, and thus advancing his demonic kingdom.Camiel, like that of an alp, likes to manipulate dreams. You see him sitting stark naked over the asleep wife throughout the movie (which is Camiel's truest form), manipulating her dreams that serve to further placate her to him. Camiel also shares characteristics with that of an incubus which is revealed when the wife has to die due to prolonged interactions with Camiel. The story of the White Child that Camiel narrates to the children is an allegorical parable in which Camiel is actually in it, and the moral of the story is the same as the moral of the movie. It is of an angel (white child) falling from heaven (above the clouds) and into the depths of hell (the bottom of a deep lake with a terrible beast in it). Camiel is the cripple during the last part of the story who volunteers to save the mother's child after all others would not. The villagers wrongly placed their trust in Jesus for the salvation of the child, which Camiel chastises them in the narrative, "Jesus is only concerned about Himself". Camiel is known to be the cripple because he gives his name as 'Antonius' to the mother in the narrative, and at the beginning of the movie, Camiel gives his name as 'Anton' to the wife, which is a derivative name. Furthermore, the etymology of 'Anton' means 'priceless', so placing faith in Anton is synonymous with placing value in something that is priceless, an obvious parable to idolatry and greed. The moral of the White Child story and the moral of the movie are the same: one should put their faith in Camiel, not Jesus. After all, Camiel is quite literally the Priceless Acolyte Landlord. This is my interpretation at least. Fantastic movie with lots to uncover for yourself.