The Lobster [DVD + Digital]

This movie is an ALLEGORY. This movie is an ALLEGORY!!I hope that clarifies. None of the action is meant to be taken at its face value. You will have to think as you watch (do not watch this if you need something to passively watch to turn off your brain at the end of a bad day).My interpretation is that the action in this movie reflects modern human societal intolerance of people who are different, people who can't or won't adhere to expectations or normalcy, or who require time to process their emotions, such as grief.The title character isn't yet a lobster, but that's the animal he picks for his transformation should he be unable to find a mate within the required time after his wife leaves him and he is relegated to the hotel where singles must go to find a mate within 45 days (or be doomed to animal life forever). He is given no time to mourn the loss of wife; her is thrown almost immediately into the hunt for a mate, much way one is exhorted to "get back on the horse" by well meaning friends and relatives for whom one's single status is now too threatening.There are a few stereotypes of dating types, but for the most part they ring true because we've either experienced them ourselves, or we ARE them. The couples engage in mutual delusion in order to fulfill the requirements and not be transformed. Some engage in outright lying coupled with self delusion. And some, when the lying and delusion are revealed, willingly choose to continue deluding themselves rather then face the horror of being single again (because surely having someone -- anyone, even a desperate liar -- is better than having no one!).And then there are the singles who've liberated themselves from the hotel straightjacket and the future animal transformation despite their failure to find someone. They have their own narrow requirements and impossible expectations -- different from, but every bit as inhumane as, the hotel's requirements. You can see why they react the way they do to escaping the hotel and the forced transformation, but their restrictions on living together as a group and forbidding flirting and sexual relations dehumanize, too -- just from the other end of the spectrum.In both situations, one is forced to deny one's true self and authentic emotion and character. The possibility of just being yourself doesn't exist either among the single escapees, or the forced couple-hood of the hotel and larger dystopian society.Among the single escapees we see those people who can't stand to see others coupled and happy, and would deny them that happiness, as fragile and transitory it often is (ah, new love; the bloom comes off all roses eventually). One of the singles has managed to stay defiantly single at the hotel among all the desperate relationship seekers; she's successfully extended her stay in limbo/delayed her forced transformation, but only because she is an utterly odious person; she offers no solution, only an example of how insane and brutal it is to live successfully with no human ties and no loving or sentimentality -- and she also helps illustrate how desperate a single person may be to lie to him/herself and to one's partner in order to fake the realtionship, as well as how devastating the consequences of getting involved with such a heartless person can be to oneself and one's other loved ones such as family or friends.Friendships are also fragile in this absurd world -- especially the way in which being in the same boat (whether coupled or single) can both generate such inauthentic friendships and destroy them (or try to) when one person's status changes and the other's doesn't.And yet, amidst this terribly bleak (though blackly funny) and absurd premise and action, once the protagonist is liberated from the dehumanizing and impossible expectations of the hotel, his true self and feelings are able to emerge. . . and a real and beautiful relationship begins. The last half hour of this film is an intertwined allegory of both the lengths some envious or especially committed singles will go to, to destroy love in others, and the desperate lengths to which a lover will go in order to be true to the beloved and the relationship after their beloved inevitably changes (whether by choice, fate, or externally imposed circumstance).And that last part is perhaps the most poignant and surprisingly romantic; it's the heartfelt intention that breaks your heart (in a good way), not whether he succeeds or fails (which is left open-ended by the film). The last few moments of this film are actually very haunting as you watch him try.As someone who in the last couple years re-entered the modern dating world after a decade away while I was in a LTR, I can definitely say I saw the allegorical parallels almost immediately. But I think it might be harder to see the allegory if one is in a happy (or just really long) long term relationship -- or if one is very young and has not experienced much in the way of relationships and (as Matt Groening once put it, in a "Life In Hell" comic) dating and mating and hating and berating. If you're one of those people, unless you're exceptionally perceptive and observant, these aspects of the film may be quite hard to realize if you haven't been down in the trenches recently, so to speak.Personally, I will watch this again, because I know I will pick up more on subsequent viewings.

I got interested in this movie after watching the trailer and reading some of the reviews. I laughed a couple of times at certain parts, but so many of the scenarios the characters were caught up in seemed contrived by some kind of demonic mind. I saw from the reviews that it was polarizing for audiences but saw that as a welcome challenge not a red flag. As I watched “The Lobster” all the way through I was having a really hard time seeing the humor or social commentary or cultural insight this movie had for some. Most of it just wasn’t funny to me, it was warped and twisted. It seemed like the director was on a wavelength that was basically the opposite of mine. He was painting a world that was evil and where love is a futile enterprise, a manipulation of some kind. The characters were all in a vacuous state, their souls were lifeless. In terms of entertainment, I feel duped. The bigger point is that it might just take a different belief system to enjoy this movie, to enjoy the inhumanity the characters often express and to be bold enough to call it hilarious.I really think this movie was some kind of great ping sent through the culture to see who would like it and how effective social programming really is. It’s like there’s cultural gatekeepers presiding over what a more enlightened mind can understand and see. Don’t fall for it. It’s okay to think for yourself. You are not going to end up killed for being different like Jerzy Kosinski’s symbolic “The Painted Bird”.The premise and storyline seemed bizarre and not symbolic of our world, but of the writer/director’s vapid perception of the people in it. I wonder if some of the fans of this movie might fall for the concept of “transhumanism” as a solution to mankind and believe that CERN holds the keys to the next frontier. Just food for thought. I may not ever be a member of the intelligentsia now! I was repulsed by the cultural subtext that this is the way things really are out in the world. That point of view is almost in awe of what is distorted and evil.I think I finally understand the expression “Holy Sh*t!” to a clearer extent after watching this movie. I believe the writer/director subscribes to the idea, “reality is what you can get away with”. The underlying message, if you will, seems to be that we’re all forced into following our society’s expectations to enter into marriage. This cultural rule or prescription of being joined with a mate is the law of the land and is basically framed as a futile and hopeless endeavor. It makes me think of a song by Amy Winehouse that says, “love is a losing game”. It’s a matter of perspective, that kind of perception doesn’t seem self-evident to me.I’m starting to get really worried about the people that say they love this movie. I caught more than a hint reading from the positive reviews that a person can consider themself clever, more intelligent, tuned in, or not of the main if they like this movie. I am definitely NOT in favor of more commercial entertainment. I am interested in social commentary, but this movie was painful to watch. Give me some humanity! What I saw in this film were the stoic faces of the collective unable to express any kind of life from themselves, the oppressive state hemming everyone in, the archetypes manifesting these messages to the audience: “life is pointless”, “the institution of marriage is a sham and doesn’t work, therefore it will be imposed upon you”, “you will laugh on cue”, “you will find inhumanity and love’s futility funny”, “fall in line! Laugh at this! The absurdity of it all!”That is there in our society, there is such a thing as cultural conditioning, even mind control, but there is also much humanity, soul power, and spirit. This movie is moving like the spirit of death trying to quench the power and life of the soul of the viewer, trying to say that this is the way it is, so give a round of applause to us for pointing it out. Conform to this perception. I don’t agree with that, I will not conform to the demonic herd.I almost thought this movie was some kind of prank or social phenomenon that supposedly demonstrated to its fans who among them was more developed and bright, as opposed to the rest of us who were offended or put off by the movie, pointing to a lack of taste, intellect, or humor. I suppose my humanity hasn’t been deadened yet. As Brad Pitt’s character in “The Tree of Life” said, “I’m not done yet.”If “life imitates art”, people truly do buy what they read in the papers. Ideas are up for sale. What do you believe?*I like Colin Farrell and have enjoyed numerous weird/different comedies and art films in my time. Some of my favorite comedies (or movies that have a lot of humor in them but may not be considered comedies) include: “Being John Malkovich”, “Bulworth”, “The Darjeeling Limited”, “Confessions of a dangerous mind”, “The Big Lebowski”, “Fight Club”, “Adaptation”, “The Player”, “Tombstone”, “The Royal Tenenbaums”, “High Fidelity” and “Fear and loathing in Las Vegas”. I felt like I was game for something different. I just didn’t think “The Lobster” was funny or worth watching. I thought some trick was being pulled on me. Anybody hear of Jonestown?

CONTAINS SPOILERSThis is undeniably an extremely odd film. It is about life lived in three different places, the city where everyone has to be part of a couple or be challenged by the police to produce your couple certificate; the woods where singles are banished to live a miserable outdoor life, or the hotel where newly single people are given some time to find a match. A match might be someone who has a similarity to you such as a limp, same blood group, tendency to nose bleeds etc - ie it's totally random. The singles from the hotel are taken out to hunt the singles in the wood, shoot them with tranquilisers, and they are returned to the hotel to be turned into animals. The hotel singles who fail to find a mate are also turned into an animal of their choice.David's wife leaves him so he is sent to the hotel with his brother in the form of a dog. Eventually after forays to the woods and the city he and another woman plan to escape, but they will only be able to live together if they can find a similarity.The end is uncertain, and there are three possibilities: either he goes through with the drastic way to make them similar, or he chickens out, or he just pretends he has undergone the dreadful act.The film is totally nuts and absurd, for example we don't know how on earth the people in the woods really live and survive. I didnt actually find it that funny, it is too horrific and disturbing,and at time absolutely gory.But it kept my attention.If you have a real love of the absurd and quite a strong stomach, and are able to accept the surreal, you might enjoy this.The cast is excellent.I'd probably give it 3 1/2 stars.

Alles, was man in Sachen Liebe und Beziehungen diskutieren könnte, erzählt diese grossartige Dystopie „The Lobster" aus dem Jahr 2015 unter der Regie von Giorgos Lanthimos .Und noch viel mehr....In der Welt von „The Lobster" ist es sogar bei Strafe verboten, sich nicht zu verlieben. Wer alleine bleibt, wird in ein Tier verwandelt. Er wird ausgestoßen.Die Geschichte ist schnell erzählt: Der kurzsichtige Architekt David (Colin Farrell mit stattlichem Schnauzer und Wohlstandsbauch ) wird von seiner Frau verlassen. Also kommt er liebeskummerkrank in das Hotel. Dort versucht er 45 Tage lang, sich in einen der anderen Singles zu verlieben, um nicht als Tier zu enden. Das darf man sich wenigstens aussuchen. David wählt den Hummer. Denn er mag das Meer.Die im Hotel gestrandeten einsamen Seelen haben einen Makel, der ihnen die Partnerwahl vorgibt. Denn, so glaubt man, nur Menschen mit ähnlichen Fehlern passen zusammen. So sucht ein junger Mann namens John eine Frau mit einem ebenso steifen Bein wie er selbst eines hat. Und findet, als seine Nase plötzlich anfängt zu bluten, eine hübsche junge Frau mit ständigem Nasenbluten.„Was ist schlimmer", fragt er den misstrauischen David, „in ein Tier verwandelt zu werden, oder sich ab und zu selbst die Nase blutig zu schlagen?" Was ist schlimmer, fragt man sich nun auch als Zuschauer. Und da kommen interessante Gedanken auf.Der griechische Regisseur Giorgos Lanthimos, der auch mit dem Hirnverbieger „The Killing of a sacred Deer“ die Grenzen des Erträglichen erkundete, erzählt die Geschichte von Davids Verkuppelung als dystopischen Thriller, schräge Komödie und hoffnungslose Romanze. Rund um das Hotel und seine Bewohner zeigt er uns eine Welt voller Horror und Herzenskälte. Und doch ist sie nah genug an unserer, um Gänsehaut zu machen. Dieses Hotel symbolisiert das geistige Gefängnis, in das uns unsere Vorstellung von „richtiger" Liebe zwängt.Der unvermittelbare David flieht schließlich aus dem Hotel zu den Lonern, einer Gruppe von Gesetzlosen, die im Wald leben und sich geschworen haben, sich nie zu verlieben. Dort, natürlich, verliebt er sich in eine ebenfalls kurzsichtige Frau (Rachel Weisz). Und sie sich in ihn. Ihr Glück scheint fast greifbar. .....„The Lobster" hat viel: großartige Bilder einer irischen Landschaft, kühl und klamm wie ein entliebtes Herz. Ein trauriges Streichquartett im Hintergrund. Einen Colin Farrell, der den Langweiler David spielt wie eine Handpuppe, ohne Antrieb, ohne Eros, also tragischerweise ohne irgendetwas Liebenswertes, einfach grandios. Dazu Lea Seydoux als wunderschöne, aber kalte Anführerin der Loners, die Flirten mit dem „Red Kiss“ bestrafen, dem Abschneiden der sündigen Lippen.Sadistische Gewalt, schmerzhaft nahe Figuren und eine heimliche Liebesgeschichte – das alles erlebt man körperlich mit. Man krümmt sich selbst zusammen, wenn John sich die Nase auf einem Tisch blutig schlägt, um endlich geliebt zu werden und riesig reißt man die Augen auf, wenn David und seine Geliebte vor ihren Häschern durch den nebligen Wald fliehen. Und man verkrampft mitleidsvoll, wenn die Hand eines Hotelinsassen in den Toaster gesteckt wird, weil er beim Onanieren erwischt wurde, der Todsünde in einer Gesellschaft, welche die Verpartnerung totalitär durchsetzen will.Ein packender Film mit unglaublich vielen skurrilen Momenten. Sehr sehenswert.

It's 3.5 stars.The description of the events are described in Amazon information. about the filmIt's deliberately filmed and acted in this sort of strange wooden way. To make the actual events described as okay because it's not real, straight acting.That bizarre acting is quite carefully done to portray the daft events.I saw it as an allegory for real life.Society accepts and believes in couples. Matched in some way, through having something in common.They get along. (this does not just include heterosexuals). This does not mean marriage.In this film the author believes that those who choose a single life (without partner) are not treated as well their coupled associates.Sometimes people find things in common, to be together, which are not real, but faked.This is very true to life, as so many partnerships end up ending.It's a very personal view of someone's take on life. which makes interesting viewing. All acted out in this strange film where if they are not a couple, they end up an animal.They get to choose which animal they want to be. (the singles choose what life they want)However, the advantages of living as a couple are forfeit. ?tax laws/love/security/someone to care for you and protect you?I liked it. But the film is a little too slow so only 3.5.

One important piece of advice for anyone without a very tough constitution - fast-forward one minute about halfway through after the wedding when she describes what she did to the dog. I disagree with the reviews stating the film contains animal cruelty - there's just this one scene where an act is described. Apart from that it's hilariously surreal. The dialogue is wonderfully bizarre, especially the scene when they fight about whether or not someone is wearing contact lenses. It's rare these days to find a film where you can't predict the whole thing from the first 5 minutes.

Worst film that I have seen for a long time. Not in the least funny, very sick and ultimately boring. I only watched it until the end hoping that at some time it would have something to save it, but no it just droned on. I can’t believe such a good cast could be in such a dreaded movie. Wish I could give it zero stars.