To me, this movie is perfection.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Tarr has shown to be a quite talented director, just see "Werckmeister Harmonies" and you'll know why, he is famous for using extremely long shots, and with this film it's the apex of what his cinema has to offer: very long shots, beautiful landscapes, deep sadness and human's evilness. But unfortunately, "Sátántangó" had pretty much everything to be the so called masterpiece, but the film's idea is greater than the film itself, which is a shame. The film is build up like this: the characters by little start to connect with each other. It has many histories but the central one involves the comeback of a man who will try to create a better society using the money of the residents of the community. It's interesting what Tarr tries to do here and the concept is great, but the way Tarr made the film ended up making this a film that sometimes fells too short, other incredibly long. There are amazing things about this film which make it at least worth watching, for example the breathtaking cinematography and the incredible soundtrack (which sometimes are used with mastery by Tarr making some scenes that you can almost feel that you are in that place with those characters, but not most of the time), and some of the "sub stories" are very interesting both in concept and the way it's developed, but this is just a little bit of the film. In the beginning it doesn't sound exaggerated his use of long shots, but for a film that is seven hours long, soon or late the film will get boring, and when it does it becomes almost impossible to still watch it. One could say that he uses long shots so the viewer can pretty much "feel" that he is on that place with that people, it works sometimes but not most of the time. The characters come and go (most come back) but Tarr does not let the public to create empathy with pretty much all of them. The main problem of this film is not only that it has long (very long) length, but Tarr fools the audience with smart monologues, the beautiful landscape and the soundtrack, but when actually on the ground there is nothing too much complex about it. Tarr tries to point how community (not just from the film but in general) is corrupted and how people are evil, but besides the film's beautiful long shots, there is nothing too original about the film. You can admire Tarr for beautiful and heartbreaking moments he creates such as the Estike part (might be Tarr's greatest and most moving moment) and others you can despise him for using extremely long shots that after sometime starts to sound annoying and pretentious. And the same happens with most of the characters: in the beginning, you get that they are real human beings with a evil side just like everyone, but then after some hours that they start to get superficial and implausible, they start to sound only like human beings with no "good" side and only moved by greed and alcohol (I also wonder if one of the reasons why Tarr chosen to make this a seven hour film is that when the film shows some problem you won't notice that because or he is fooling the audience with the film's beautiful landscape or the viewer is already too much tired to notice any problem). Even thought Sátántangó can be the apex of Tarr's self indulgence it also can be a good exploration of how a community work, it is a haunting film, filled with great cinematography and some memorable dialogues and moments, and he does have a message to tell and sometimes he is able to tell it in a very good way, but his pretentiousness and distance won't help much, therefore, it is a film you can admire for wanting to say something "new" with a original touch by Tarr but himself does not allows the audience to admire it for other reasons that are emotionally related. A film that disguises itself as a film that has a lot to tell when actually it's ambition does not let it go too much far, a film filled with exaggerations (and I'm not just saying that only because of the time of the film but also because some "sub stories" does not sound necessary to the plot and it's not interesting to watch, and even if there is a message there, the boredom won't let see)

If you agree with the following statement, then read on; otherwise skip my entire review.The torturing/killing of living things is NEVER justified if the reason is "for entertainment", or worse, "for art".Good, you're still here which means there's hope for the human race. SATANTANGO features a scene where a real cat is shaken, flipped around, rolled in the dirt, rolled over, shaken again, stuck in a bag and hung on a wall. The torture lasts about 10 minutes and can be seen on Youtube by searching "Satantango cat".Not all countries have animal protection laws, and not all directors respect animal life. Oddly enough, it's often the "enlightened", well-respected filmmakers who are the worst offenders. Watch out for Tarr (Satantango - cat tortured), Tarkovsky (Andrei Rublov - cow lit on fire, horse shot and thrown down stairs), Herzog (Even Dwarfs Started Small - monkey crucified, chickens thrown through window), Von Trier (Manderlay - donkey slaughtered), Coppola (Apocalypse Now - water buffalo partially decapitated), Ki Duk Kim (where to begin?), and the list goes on. You can check all my 1 star reviews for more.To all of the above films I say no thank you, just as I'd prefer not to cheer at a bullfight or adore a Nazi lamp made of human flesh, no matter how "beautiful". I'll stick to directors who show sensitivity and compassion, in front of the lens as well as behind it: Kurosawa, Wenders, Jarmusch, Anno, there are plenty enough films to keep me busy.

Goaded on by curiosity, I saw SATANTANGO at the Pacific Film Archive several years ago. Critics gushed that SATANTANGO was without parallel - but two hours into the movie, I was less than impressed. Very little plot. Black and gray photography. Segments that went on seemingly forever, with no clear point. Much of the audience filed out early, and I left early, too. Was the director, Bela Tarr, trying to make the film an endurance contest? More recently, I consulted the Internet Movie Database to see what was written about SATANTANGO. The cumulative rating of 8.5 of 10 was impressive, as were the write-ups. "A stunning experience," says one viewer. "Biggest cinematic experience in history," says another. The kudos go on and on. But if you scroll down the database, you'll also find the negative reviews. "Self- indulgent, annoying," one writer says. One of the more measured responses is, "I do not regret that I saw this movie, but I certainly to not think it was a day well-spent" - after giving the film a 1 of 10 rating. So, I decided to see the film again - this time on DVD - to determine if my initial dismissal at the PFA was warranted. And I learned how to appreciate a different kind of movie - and even come to enjoy it. My hints to a naive viewer:Calibrate your attention span. The individual takes of SATANTANGO are unusually long; the first scene, set outside a pen for steers and chickens, lasts over eight minutes, with no cuts. Just a single tracking shot. This happens through the entire film; in fact, the long takes and slow tracking shots give the film its rhythm and style. If you go into SATANTANGO expecting a film paced to contemporary standards, you'll be disappointed. If you can, take a few breaks between segments - and ask questions.Learn about recent European history. It's possible to enjoy SATANTANGO on its own merits, but understanding recent history helps greatly. The film dramatizes the economic depression that gripped the break-up of the Soviet blok, and things gone very bad, indeed. There's crumbling infrastructure everywhere. People struggle to get by, just barely, by depending on agricultural collectives (like the one depicted in SATANTANGO). This gray, depressing worldview would eventually engulf the region. Structure, structure, structure. The key to appreciating SATANTANGO lies in understanding the film's structure. Another reviewer here aptly mentioned Akira Kurosawa's RASHOMON, wherein the film's narrative is defined by a single event - told in entirely different ways by the main characters. SATANTANGO uses a similar technique; several characters experience the same segment of time from different points of view. The eight-minute "preface" introduces us to the collective itself - where the barebones infrastructure is shown. From here, each segment of the film is separated by an inter-title; when a new segment starts, we see the same action - from a new character's POV. But nearly every segment involves leaving this wet, cold, impoverished piece of hell - or try to exploit it. Dance "the Satantango." The musical segments can open the way to appreciating and even enjoying SATANTANGO. Music is important for Tarr, and the repeating figures of dance are a metaphor. The tango is a repeating dance that abides by the rule, "one step forward, two steps back." It's reflected in the lives of the characters, who take one step forward in their lives, but always end up two steps back. The "chapters" of the film don't move forward like a typical narrative work; it repeats the same segment of time, over and over again. If you're frustrated by the fact that the movie seems static - that's the point. SATANTANGO is a story that can't move forward; it repeats the same familiar song, over and over - until a development determines a new course of action for the characters.I didn't enjoy SATANTANGO when I saw it the first time, but I've since become a fan. The investment of time may seem extreme to some, but it's more than worthwhile.

Bela Tarr's seven hour rambling film about the people in a collective in Hungary around the fall of communism.Its good but seeing this in what was a largely single marathon sitting was trying.It's got some wonderful segments and is good over all, but it's a long slog thanks to Tarr's style of long takes and shooting things like the table while action happens off screen. It's a good film and I intend on watching it again down the road, but I don't think I'll be able to sit for the 7 plus hours it took to watch this in one sitting the first time. I'll break it up by sections.Yes I know the length of the film should not come in to play,a good film is a good film, but at the same time this is a slow seven hours.Worth seeing but in bits and pieces