Waiting for the Barbarians

This film is about how nasty we can be while hiding behind things like authority, law and other euphemisms for power. A slow burn movie, it stars Mark Rylance - in a yet another great role - as a decent man who has no power to control things, but has to observe others. I will have to say that both Johnny Depp and Robert Pattinson did a great job, but their characters barely covered ten minutes of screen taken together. The film is well done, beautifully shot, introspective.

Bottom line: a gem in the mud, a film that was bound to gather low ratings because it is uncomfortable to bear witness to human cruelty, pride and greed. It's a must watch, but be warned that it is not easy to do so.

.....just wish there had been some historical context to it. I mean, the hats say French empire, but where and when? The "barbarians' are Asian and in the desert, so Mongolia? Were the French ever in Mongolia? Anyway, watch it for the drama, it's a pretty good little film.

"Waiting for the Barbarians" intrigued me with its promise and stellar cast, including Mark Rylance, Johnny Depp, and Robert Pattinson, but left me feeling underwhelmed, earning a 6/10 from me. The film's attempt to delve into themes of colonialism and human nature, inspired by J. M. Coetzee's novel, didn't fully materialize on screen. The pacing was too slow for my taste, making it hard to stay engaged, and the adaptation lacked the depth and emotional resonance of its source material. While the narrative aimed to be thought-provoking, it felt superficial, failing to capture the novel's subtlety. Despite the cast's efforts, the film missed the mark on delivering a compelling exploration of its profound themes.

Although the cinematography and the acting are almost excellent the slow pace of the story makes Waiting For The Barbarians just a movie that is worth watching once but not more. It just lacks some oomph, maybe some battle scenes to make it better. There is some cruelty and torturing though, physical and mental torture, so the story is still captivating and the excellent acting of Mark Rylance is the best thing of the movie. Johnny Depp and Robert Pattinson are for once the bad people, and they did a very good job playing characters that everybody normal will dislike. All in all it isn't a bad movie but it clearly misses something to make it exceptional.

JM Coetzee is the author of the original book, and is rightly lauded for his story telling ability as much as his literary ability. However, his works haven't easily transferred to screen, which is not uncommon for high-end literary works. This one to me is borderline.

What we have is a tale set in the 19th century of a humble wise magistrate of a garrision on the frontiers of an unnamed European Empire (seems like an area bordering around the former Soviet Union states). His stoic nature though is confronted by the entry of a colonel and his forces, who seem hell-bent to start battle with locals who are NOT looking for aggression. The Colonel is everything our magistrate is not, and the whole matter is complicated by the magistrates falling in love with a local lady he helps to return to her people.

Surprisingly this film hasn't been warmly received by the critics which is surprising, as it is actually very good. The main hold is the sublime performance by Mark Rylance in the lead, who can't have been any better than what he has done with the role. You empathise with him, and see his destruction at the hands of his colleagues (which clearly shows that the true Barbarians are at his side and not beyond the walls).

Johnny Depp was fine but seemed out of place, whilst Robert Pattison gets better with every film he stars in. The setting is perfect and beautiful, and the film has a fine slow pace. Admittedly it could have helped to flesh out some other characters more than just the magistrate to give them more weight, especially the mysterious colonel.

I don't get what it is that the critics were downgrading here? It's a fine existential story, and one that some will enjoy revisiting. Fair enough, the subject matter and a number of scenes are uncomfortable to watch, but that's the point! It's not about a rose-tinted look at the colonial past. It's also not 'Zulu' (which admittedly I very much love).

It's a tough watch at times, but very worth a viewing. Mark Rylance will little do better anywhere else ever again. He at least is a major reason to watch this one.