Oliver Hermanus's 'Beauty' is a harsh film, the story of a repressed gay man in a loveless (straight) marriage prone to intermittent bouts of sexual violence. The way it is filmed is designed to echo the sense of loneliness in his life: lots of long, still shots that emphasise just how little is really going on, except for his brooding obsessions. In fact, I can't remember the last time I watched a film in which background noise is so prominent: I can see why it was shot in this way, but the on-going hum does get annoying after a while. There's only so long one wants to watch, and listen to, nothing much happening in a sawmill or cafeteria. In the end, the reductionist animal-ism of the protagonist makes it impossible to sympathise with him; indeed, his relentless calculation makes him seem chilling rather than tragic, and in consequence the film feels unpleasant rather than sad.

Right down to its title, this film is designed to be little more than sensationalism of the most repugnant type. 'Ugliness' would be a more apt title. Why the South African government, film industry, or any industry, would want to be connected with subject matter so repulsive, beggars belief. To send this lowly work out into the world, tells us perhaps we've lost our sense of reality. Between the young director, his editor, and cinematographer, they have created a movie looking more like un-edited 'rushes' for a TV commercial. The script would probably be very brief, as there's maybe 40mins of story, but the film labors for almost 2 hrs under endless long scenes to pad out the emptiness. Ultimately, many of these extended shots are used to set up very ordinary situations (this alone may leave you tempted to watch much of it at 1 1/2 times speed) It all leads up to an inexplicably violent homosexual rape that's nothing short of unforgivable. The film makers are inexcusably 'getting off' on the ugly brutality...to the point of leaving any discerning viewer wanting to walk out, or dump the disc.This horrific action (along with several other dismal character traits) are then left unexamined, so this hideous psychopathic bi-sexual, can now go home to infect* his mostly neglected wife...until his next 'infatuation' (*Historicaly, A.I.D.S. is recorded as originating from the African continent, and often proliferates within overactive bi- sexual circles ~ and while media doesn't report on aids as it used to, it's unfortunately alive and murderously well...in all fact, it's reported increase is at a 20year high) The film offers almost no believable character development, no convincing motive, no resolve, just excess (and lots of it). Equally disturbing is that South Africa entered this into Cannes film festival, as their offering for best foreign film! But, maybe there's still hope, for eventually it was voted out. Some viewers (and 'critics') have attempted to look for meaning and metaphor, but it's easy to read depth into any film, even where there is none. I tend to side with other reviewers who have expressed concern --that basically, what amounts to little more than pornographic films-- are even considered for, let alone allowed, to run on cable (shame on SBS/WM) - free to air - then sold on DVD by unscrupulous distributors who would sell their souls for a profit. Trash remains trash, no matter how expensive, polished, well performed, or so claimed as 'Art' it may be. Doe's a world already drowning in nastiness need it? Do we in the world gain a better understanding of ourselves from it?. If these works offer no positive benefit to society, then they should be seriously considered for a re-edit (so easy with today's technology) or as we used to, return it to the country of origin. Let them further corrupt their own lands ~ OK, so these suggestions will upset the selfish, 'freedom to over-indulge' crowd! But hey, what's more important?

I am unsure how to write this review without sounding like some failed writer or even some unhappy critic.I had not heard of this movie before, so seeing this would be a totally new experience for me and for sure...this was!I totally understood where the movie was coming from and what intentions they had for this movie, the premise was actually quite interesting in part - (straight!)Man fights his desire of gay feelings for some cute young guy, all gets too much for him and he loses control, attempts to rape him, feels guilty and well to be honest that's it.so many scenes left you hanging, the writers started something and never finished or parts were never fully explained, the long scenes of staring and silence, this movie could have been covered in about 40 minutes tops. This movie was long and painfully drawn out, some people here read into this differently and that is a shame as they built it up and in my and my friends minds it did not follow through, yes maybe some left to the imagination but much of it did not need to be told, some of the scenes could have been cut totally.Just my 2 cents!(pennies!!!)

In Hermanus's sophomore feature we receive a character study about a repressed Afrikaner homosexual family-man, who starts obsessing about his nephew. A movie focused solely on the main character, not a likable man by any length due to his bubbling volcanoes of sexual frustration coupled with a culturally inflicted hate towards moffies (gays) and blacks.Enough said that the rating means I liked the movie, despite it's slow pacing and vague storytelling. I must say however that my review is more a direct response to JvH48 review, which I found very lacking and miscommunicated.1) "An indirect result of falsely reporting his car stolen (why?), is that uncle and nephew finally meet." After the car was stolen he reported it to his family and this resulted in his daughter being told of this fact and hurriedly ending her beach day with Christian. The uncle and nephew finally meet as the first called the latter to have him picked up.2) "Their conversation seems not to run very smoothly, however. The dialogue falters very often, seemingly no stepping stone for meeting again." Their conversation was not intended to run smoothly. It was supposed to be awkward for Christian.3) "Nevertheless, they continue talking in the uncle's hotel room (why?)." Christian wanted to borrow money from his rich uncle, hence he went with him to the hotel room to further discuss the loan. As it is between uncle and nephew he found it a natural family occurrence... Most likely the money retrieved from the bank in the penultimate scene is for Christian and his business.4) "Though what happened in the hotel room can be expected to have severe impact on family relationships, we see no reference to it in any later scene. At least the daughter should know, given her close relation with the nephew." No. That is exactly the point. This occurrence was kept hidden within the family. The movie seems to say that in the Afrikaner culture swiping all the dirt under the carpet is just a way of life. Hence apart from Christian's family cutting ties with Francois and his family the attempted rape had no direct consequences.4) "For example, the uncle buys an IPod (with o) for this nephew, after hearing that he was in need of an IPad (with a). We see him carrying the IPod along all the time, but never gets the chance to hand it over and have his mistake exposed." Why? Why did the mistake have to be exposed? The iPod served it's purpose as an symbol of Francois's obsession.5) "And with this closing scene still on our minds, we were sent home without a clue how everything ties together, nor how it makes logical sense." The movie ends with Francois paying out money, most likely to give them to Christian, given his remorse for what happened (also the scenery in the background is Cape Town, but only a knowledgeable observer would notice). After going to the bank Christian by chance sees a couple of gays kiss in a restaurant and feels envious about them and sad about his life. End movie. Everything nicely tied in together and the movie is beautifully punctuated.