User reviews

If you enjoyed Tarkovsky's Solaris, Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey or Godard's Alphaville then this might be up your alley. It's a slow paced surreal sci fi film, with warbling, droning synth music, 80's film colouring and the occasional blurred visuals as if you are sedated. Which if fitting as it tells the story of a powerful young girl being held captive and under sedation by a mysterious and futuristic cult, that seems to be conducting some kind of scientific experimentation. Very little really happens in most of the film, just striking visuals, long stares, pulsing lights (matched by a pulsing synth soundtrack), and slow shots of the kind of things that people thought to be futuristic back in the 80's. If you like the sound of any of this then check it out, if not then definitely give it a miss and save yourself the time.

Does this summary says enough? If you don't know what I mean let me explain. If you will have 100 geeks well I guess maybe 5 will like this kind of flick. It do has the feeling of 2001 A Space Odyssey. It is extremely slow and a pure throwback to Sci-Fy from the seventies without aliens.

The score used is also back to the eighties or late seventies, the colour grading on the other hand did remind me of Begotten (1990). Extra saturated moments and editing that also makes you go insane.

The story itself is simple as it could be, captured and trying to escape, as simple as that.

If you like your movies very weird this is your thing. If you like stories full of questions, pick it up. It do has a horror feeling here and there what makes it more weird. But I can agree with most reviewers, bad ending.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5

OK so for convenience, I'll just break it down to the kind of people who will like this movie, vs. those who won't. You pick your category and then you will know if you should see it. Because 1 out of 20 people will love this, and the rest will think it is the worst movie ever.

You will love it if: 1: You felt 2001 could have been even slower paced and still be awesome 2: You love really thinky sci-fi even if it doesn't involve people shooting aliens 3: You are crazy in love with 80's hair styles and weird synth music (this movie takes place in 1983, and takes that responsibility VERY seriously) 4: You loved Agent Smith's delivery of lines in The Matrix, and would have liked it if he talked even more slowly and threateningly 5: You think the only good sci-fi is 70's Russian sci-fi

You will hate this movie if: 1: You enjoy having more than one person deliver lines over the course of two hours (basically one speaking part in this movie, though the actor does a good job) 2: You don't like when movies are very, very pretentious 3: You like your movies to generally make an effort to make sense (at one point I swear the main guy gets a phone call from Speak-n-Spell) 4: You don't like when movies spend a considerable amount of their running time trying to injure the viewer's senses 5: You like a really good ending (if you look over the reviews, whether people loved or hated this movie everyone agrees the ending was weak)

All things considered, I really liked this movie, and so did the people I saw it with. But that's a bunch of film geeks. If you're a weird film geek too, I recommend it.

This movie was written by directed by Panos Cosmatos, creator of Mandy, which I love. Similarly to Mandy, the dialogue was slow and surreal, but this movie just wasn't as engaging and special as Mandy. I cannot ignore the absolutely beautiful visuals and cinematography, but at the same time they were really the only thing that kept me invested in the movie. The movie was basically plotless and it was just so damn slow, it almost felt like a chore to watch. It's really not a bad movie, the only things wrong with this movie are the (very) slow pacing, and the lack of plot. Still maybe worth a watch, but you don't have to give your full attention.

Its a well done enough horror/suspense/David Cronenberg esque wtf kind of film--but after a while i kind of just wanted them to cut to the chase already. by which i mean there's a lot of set up and a lot of artfully done goosing of that set up--but it takes a good hour and a half if not longer before the actual ch as/confrontation between the two main characters that you spend most of the film waiting to happen finally happens. Don't get me wrong--this movie is trying and succeeds to a varying degree at capturing a certain style and certain flavor of suspense horror film---the director is quite clearly a fan of early Cronenberg--there's not just the obvious nod to Scanners but there's nods to The Brood and Shivers and even a slight one to videodrome in here as well (at least i thought i caught those maybe i'm wrong i don't know) and there are nods to other scare films of the early 80's as well--and certainly the whole tone and pace and set design and wardrobe and just everything about it is very much on the money for a suspense film from the early part of that decade--but i don't know, the movie also had a sort of sleepy effect on me---like as psychedelic as the director wants the movie to be (and it definitely is) you can only indulge in that kind of style so much before you just end up putting a guy like me into a kind of coma--and not the cool trance like one that i'm sure the director was hoping his film would have on its audience. You know there's only so much ranting and raving i could take from the good psychotic doctor and there's only so much self defense scenes i could take from the woman in the mental hospital before a part of me just wanted to scream Get on with it already movie! but eventually the movie does--and it does it well enough---but not so well enough that i can't help but think this movie should have probably been at least a half hour shorter then it was. Ehh whatever---i'm positive it will find its audience soon enough anyways and it will have a nice cult like following in the years to come--much like Cronenberg's early stuff does too.

I went into this with no expectation whatsoever, so the first 40-50 minutes were amazing and original with bags of style conjuring an eager anticipation for what lay ahead for what appeared to be a low budgeter Sci-Fi/thriller that could definitely compete. However, the style soon became monotonous and predictable, ultimately undoing everything that had come before with its lack of progression. Editing was also exceptionally poor, where long drawn out episodes that worked so well in, say, the original version of "Solaris" or "2001", overstepped its original boldness by becoming irritating in the tiresome second half. But what appeared to be original and innovative was to become it's worst enemy - with so many options made available in the first half - the second half was a miserable let down. Any notion of this being a cerebral thriller utterly forsaken for....well....not a lot at the end of the day....with a its only goal to meet its mildly intriguing final shot.

I so want to recommend this for its brave and fresh (if derivative) approach, but - as a movie in its complete format - it was a very poor.

It's the cold, shiny time of 1983. In what looks like a sci-fi future vision via the Kubrickian '60s a utopia is created to try to grant happiness to the masses via a complex regime of meditation, nature, and pharmacology--and absolute isolation in the sterile confines of building that somewhat resembles a fluorescent spaceship crash-landed within the sparse flora of a desolate earth. This utopia has been tainted by evil, and our savior is a near mute, beguiling beauty that must break through harm's way in order to regain some normalcy to her life, a life born to such a world and never matured entirely, and if this task is not achieved could possibly alter the future for us all. This is the topsy-turvy, slowly moving, marvelously rendered, and absolutely bewildering world of Beyond the Black Rainbow. This film, written and directed by Panos Cosmatos (whose daddy made several he-man action films in the actual '80s), turns lo-fi film grain, stark sets, odd camera angles, and eternal pauses in dialogue and action into a strange mosaic that is more of a compilation of what came to define hard science fiction films from the late 1960s to mid 1980s. The film begins like a post-script to "2001", or an early David Cronenberg film mutates into what resembles the "Rising" shorts of Kenneth Anger, and finally settles into the paranoia of Lucas' "THX 1138" mixed again with the mutations of the body that so intrigued Cronenberg's early efforts. This film for a small subset of film buffs, and in conception and tone most resembles the genre shot comp that was 2009's "Amer". Where that film aped sequences from Italian giallos, this seems to be doing the same for American and Russian science movies. This film feels like an experiment, or more to the point an exercise, but it is a worthwhile, rewarding viewing for their trouble in taking the trippy voyage laid out before them. I recommend it to viewers with patience and acceptance of story lines that are mostly devoid of linear narratives (you know who you are). -CP 8/10

Drawing influence from Argento, Kubrick, Cronenberg, early George Lucas, very early Carpenter, and even Mirhage at one point, Panos Cosmatos' debut film strangely manages to exist in a category all its own. It tries to do much with its themes, as well, addressing the Boomer generation's uprising of New Age alternative medicine (or just "not medicine" as learned men may call it) and how it may have evolved into dark experimentation in the 1980's. This might have been the movie that started the 80's nostalgia craze of this past decade, made more mainstream by works like Drive and Stranger Things (and also vaporwave).

Like Cosmatos' heavily stylized Mandy - which is a unique sight to behold in spite of its callbacks to grindhouse horror, Heavy Metal, et al - 2010's Beyond the Black Rainbow mixes several old-school visions to create a journey into the unknown that (in spite of it all but very fittingly) is unlike anything I've seen with my mortal eyes. It does have more style than substance, unfortunately, and one can get bored by it. Still, it may put you in too much of a trance for you to switch it off.

Most fascinating among the main characters is Dr. Barry Nyle (Michael Rogers), who runs the Arboria Institute, described as "a New Age research facility dedicated to finding a reconciliation between science and spirituality", in 1983, now conducting experiments to unlock the psychic abilities of young captive Elena (Eva Allan). The elderly Dr. Arboria, who founded the institute, is also being kept at the facility, alongside several once-human lifeforms.

Nyle is also not quite the person he once was. We learn that he was Arboria's star pupil and that the final stage of his training, where he was intended to achieve transcendence, unleashed something evil. Michael Rogers plays him in a way where you can believe that a man this broken could exist. As with the recent Joker, we follow Nyle on a journey where he becomes "himself" and finally smiles.

Again, there is much to recognize here. The camera work will undoubtedly bring Kubrick to mind, certain body horror elements are out of Cronenberg's playbook, the colored lighting of certain scenes are very Argento, one sequence resembles THX, another resembles Begotten, and there is one set in particular that would be at home in Jodorowsky's The Holy Mountain.

I also mentioned Carpenter earlier, and his influences are also present in Sinoia Caves' soundtrack, which is currently one of my absolute favorites in cinema (it is certainly my most played album on Spotify this year). I read that Tangerine Dream and the music from The Shining were also part of the "blueprints".

I get to wondering: why was I more bothered by the blatant influences in, say, The Neon Demon from 2016? Nicolas Winding Refn, its director, likes to reference many of the same auteurs and eras as Cosmatos, yet I find that Cosmatos has managed to create his own universe of strangeness altogether, whereas Neon Demon seemed more like it was aping other films. I'm not sure why. Maybe because The Neon Demon tried to have interesting characters on some level, and then didn't deliver.

Beyond the Black Rainbow, meanwhile, is very unabashedly not about that. Its aim is to take you beyond the borders of our reality (even if this surreal alternate '86 still has commentary to offer), whether you meet any realistic people on the other side or not. The movie does have a few hollow moments because of it (it wouldn't have hurt if we knew a bit more about Elena before she broke, or if she was more of an audience surrogate), but I have faith that Cosmatos will one day so completely transport me that I don't care if I even see a human face the entire film.

7 is my current rating. I intend to see the film again; I feel like this is one of those movies where the atmosphere and the viewer's state of mind will determine if it is a "meh" or a 10/10. It is nonetheless a deeply fascinating movie that, in spite of my above statements, I can't fully compare to much of anything:

It's 1983. Dr. Mercurio Arboria founded the Arboria Institute to achieve happiness. Dr. Barry Nyle has taken charged of the isolated compound filled with 70s futurism. Elena is a disturbed mute patient showing psychic powers.

This is more of an experimental indie. The 70s style is nice and the 70s setting is cool. It takes on a lot of 70s sensibilities including how slow it is. It borders on being unwatchable. There are some interesting stylish moments. It doesn't appear to have any CGI. The various effects like Elena's mind control is done using camera work. All of it is interesting for film buffs but this is not for the general public.

I saw this film at the AFI film festival. Before the film started the director said "I hope you're as messed up in the head as I was when I made this film." He was very right. The film is not for everybody, nor should it be. It is long, confusing, and I loved every minute of it. It is a film you have to buy into to enjoy, but once you're in you're in for a trip. A brilliant piece of science fiction, and contains one of the scariest scenes I have seen in a long time. The cinematography was also brilliant and some phenomenal lighting. This movie is not for those with a short attention span, but anybody who can sit through 2001, Enter the Void or Stalker should love this film.

This film is really quite bad. . .

Instead of a conventional plot, the film focuses on a single situation, really more of a concept, about a dystopian psychiatric facility set in an imaginary future, actually a hazy recollection of early 80's sci fi references, and Kubricks geometric set design pieces from the 60's and 70's.

Writer/director Panos Cosmatos would have you believe that 'Black Rainbow' is a think piece about the nature of mind control and constructed identity, and although the idea is worthy of our attention, the sheer lack of real character motivations, plot depth and content make most of the film feel like an empty production exercise, in which piles of artificial film grain, monochromatic lighting and veeeerrrrry slow dialogue replaces significant story development. Beyond the Black Rainbow feels like a single scene played out over an entire movie without a relatable character anywhere in sight.

There is however, a sequence of experimental, abstract film where we're shown some backstory as to how the movies antagonist became, well, evil and stuff. The use of far-out visuals and stylized effects feel expansive and meaningful, if only for a short sequence.

Panos Cosmatos inserts 80s pop culture references into the film, including bits of slasher movie material, bad 80s metal, blocky sci- fi interiors, droning synth noise etc, which might evoke a kind of retro aesthetic for younger viewers. Again, no real substance in this movie, just a theme and some set design pieces, unfortunately.

Narrative themes depicting telepathy, drug abuse, surveillance and restraint are all played out heavily in almost slow-motion sequences to create a creepy atmosphere throughout, making this something of a horror film, but its certainly not a professionally made movie, and doesn't really deserve the mystique of being a proper cult item.

I heard about this title mid 2011 and has been near the top of my list ever since, not sure what the delay was in distribution but it's been quite a wait, which fuelled my desire to see this film. The instant I saw the trailer I was certain this was my kind of film, vague dialogue hinting a hidden depths, long drawn out scenes with sinister undertones and beautifully crafted futurism styled sets (maybe a little to Kubrick-esk) but still great looking. Everything was in place for a successful romp around a mercurial world spawned and brought to life in nightmarish vision by Panos Cosmatos.

But, for all it's promise and as much as I really wanted to love this film it did fall a little flat. The set design is beautifully crafted, and the high photography levels of some of the scenes is something to be admired, but on occasion a little arbitrary as some scenes did not drive character or narrative forwards nor did it express or emphasis emotions.

The narrative is overly grand which I like (keep it simple) and is deliberately slow and off-paced, which will definitely separate the film lovers from the average watcher that may have stumbled across this film, as you will need to invest a little concentration. There was a downfall to the film as mysterious and menacing atmosphere that it postured at the start did dissipate throughout the film.

This is a first attempt by a director who clearly has a cinematic eye with a good understanding of film taking inspiration from some great directors. Unfortunately he didn't quite create the level of intrigue found in a Kubrick film or a deliver the ruptured reality of a Lynch film and missed the overall depth of a Tarkovskiy film, but it wasn't without it's own moments.

Definitely worth your time - A steady start from a new director but it's worth remembering art house isn't an exact science, hopefully he will get the chance to produce more in the future.

When this film started there was a glimmer of hope this could truly be terribad. Unfortunately...

I wanted this to be bad. It was. I wanted it to be so bad that it was good. But no, it goes well beyond that... the scenes and forced face camera shots are so long and drawn out that you can't even mock it properly. Whatever semblance of a plot there is, is what you make up in your own head to give this time spent some meaning.

I imagine this is the kinda film you put on for people laying on your floor who are very high.

Or for people that you wish to inflict some torturous pain because they have wronged you and your family.

The Wikipedia entry for this film is insanely long. I appreciate the writer(s) who took the time to unpack the plot and thematic elements of this, almost all of which are hidden under layers deftly crafted by Panos Cosmatos, whose sparse output over the last decade (just this film and 2018's Mandy) suggest an auteur who is willing to create art which seems predestined for cult classic status. Does this movie make sense? Who the heck knows! We are presented with so much visual information that a single freeze frame could unfold into ten movies' worth of "meaning." That doesn't seem to be the point. (Not to discount any of the fan theories, almost all of which I find extremely intriguing.)

This, as with Mandy, is a film to let go with; let it wash over you. While it isn't overly long, it flows at a glacial pace, taking its time and picking its spots to indulge with precision. I really liked it. And I can't help but feel that the very best Cosmatos has to offer is still to come.

As you could already tell from all the other positive reviews, the movie is a visual masterpiece showcasing a unique style of cinematography. The combination of expressive visual and sound effects set the mood of the scenes very well.

BUT, the movie failed to effectively tell the story overall. The pacing and way of the storytelling in the movie seem very inconsistent , the first 70% of the movie was very slow(some parts overly slow yet ineffective). The slow/long scenes adding small hints to build the story were ineffective, leaving most of the actual story to the imagination of the audience. (I don't mind this way of story telling with information left out but this movie just left out too much and it felt like you are watching a summary of an actual movie)Then, the 30% leading up to the end was going at the speed of light, which also led up to a very unsatisfying ending in my opinion. ( would be great if the movie was going at 50mph throughout instead of 5mph and then 100mph)

Overall, I did enjoy the movie since I love visual arts and the art of cinematography. The techniques and unique direction of the movie is refreshing, with the downside of the actual storytelling. Also, I would not recommend this movie to anyone since I think the people who would be into this type of movie would probably find it themselves and the ones that won't would be bored to death by this movie.

wow this movie sucked. There is nothing good to say about this movie. There were times when you could fast forward the movie and it would still look slow, this is not an exaggeration. Nothing happens for the longest time and your patience never pays off. I was hoping for something trippy, the whole time i felt like there was potential for trippyness but it never delivers. There were a few moments where the movie really looked like it might fo somewhere or there was characters that was almost interesting but the movie is so dull that those moments are not worth mentioning in fear that i might make someone think there is something redeemable about this movie. Everyone do yourself a favor and skip this one!

Here is a weird movie. It is slow and deliberate, which for some people will just mean slow. I enjoyed sequences of it, but other parts were hard to wait through. It's trippy with experimental sounds and visuals. It's not one that I will forget though.