Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Admirable film.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

This movie is easily explained as someone who had a fever dream. It's surreal and plays with your senses and emotions. The uncanny feeling when your're not having a nightmare but a bad dream. There's no clear way of telling if you should laugh or cry in this movie unlike your average box office hits.But if you have the patience and time, this movie will give you strange dreamy never to be forgotten.

Okay I admit that I am very mad at this film after watching it for the first time. I came in with such anticipation of seeing the creepiest and weirdest film I've ever seen and it was neither of those. It feels like a bad student film very derivative of early short films by Clive Barker and David Lynch. People have claimed how visceral it is, but I simply found it boring and very cartoonish. The one thing I did enjoy were the sound effects of crickets and fires crackling, etc. The flaw with these sounds are they help put you to sleep for what is already a very boring piece of art. Is combining strange negative filming, no dialogue and minimal sound effects an interesting idea? Perhaps, but all these things have been done before, separately and with much better results. The story, if there is one, is just a convoluted mess. Although the style of filming may be interesting it also makes it difficult to tell what exactly is going on. I'm sure many reviewers who love this film will say I don't understand it or don't like experimental films. Hey, I love experimental films like the ones by the aforementioned Barker and Lynch. I even watched the BRILLIANT experimental film from 1955 called Dementia a few days before I watched this film and absolutely loved it. If you want to give the director some points for originality go ahead, but I assure you, you'll watch it once and never feel the need to see it again.

Originally I hated this film upon first viewing. I saw a bootleg pirated internet copy on a dorm room TV in my buddies' dorm room when we decided to go down a list of art films we wanted to see. We watched this were severely disappointed. My original rating was a 2. I thought it was boring, pretentious, and overrated. But the more I went back and watched it, which I strangely kept thinking about the film. I watched it a few times and I liked it more every time. So at the moment this film is at a 5 for me. It's not accessible and it is challenging to watch and it somewhat becomes an endurance for your eyes to figure just what it is that you are seeing. SO take my review for what it is worth. I'm sure I'll get told; "You're an idiot you don't get it." or "Stick to big budget Hollywood garbage." But this is how I feel about the film. So there.

Remember that scene from the Japanese 'Ring' when we see the cursed video footage for the first time and it's a disturbing, grainy, black and white montage of writhing bodies, ominous hooded figures standing beside the sea, and the well in the middle of the desolate forest? Well 'Begotten' is a lot like that except that it's arguably more disturbing as well as considerably longer.'Begotten' is clearly not for the masses. From the get-go the imagery is gruesome: in the opening scene we see a figure disembowelling himself with a razor, the corpse of which is molested by a female figure who impregnates herself and gives birth to a fully grown man who convulses in seemingly perpetual agony before both of them consequently suffer at the hands of different categories of ambiguous, sadistic ghouls. At the end of the film a cast of 'characters' informs us that those at the beginning were God killing Himself, Mother Earth, and Son Of Earth - Flesh On Bone…if that helps.In addition to this challenging content, another point of contention is the grainy, 'Erasrerhead'-esque black-and-white cinematography which makes the images at times so distorted that it's difficult to discern any clear outlines, which can be frustrating when you're trying to not miss anything in an attempt to fathom the impenetrable narrative! However, in endeavouring to appreciate the bold artistic ambitions of the film I forgave all of this...but the one thing which really irked me was the fact is that it is basically too long. The film clocks in at over 70 minutes and yet I genuinely think I would have appreciated it to the same level if it were half of this.Having said that, the film clearly wasn't designed with any intention of crowd-pleasing, and unrepentantly is what it is: a unique and individual film which walks amongst the best (and most thought-provoking) experimental cinema has to offer. So while you could say "take it or leave it" I really think those that choose the latter are missing something exceptional.