User reviews

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.

Caught from the first act of the film by the set ,the mood,the music, the customs ,the lighting the performance of Mark Rylance and Johnny depp paving the way for watching a masterpiece..the structure of the characters revealed and their intentions is obvious leading to an inevitable clash between them..then there was the girl which was pivotal showing us another depth of Mark Rylance's character ..feeling guilty for what happened to her people and trying to redeem his guilt by saving her despite knowing what that would lead to ..that's where the film begin to have a lot of holes and unclear parts messed with the continuity of the film messing the script structure and a lot of things was just happening without explanation which made me couldn't fully immersed emotionally with some events despite how heavily strong they were ..loved the pace ,the acting performance the angles the natural light and cinematic look and mood ,the characters complications ..but the misconnections made it a lost masterpiece.

This film makes the viewers question who are the real barbarians. I find it engaging and introspective. It's beautifully shot too.

Waiting for the Barbarians is a film directed by Ciro Guerra, and stars Mark Rylance, Johnny Depp, and Robert Pattinson. This is a historical drama where Mark Rylance plays the magistrate for this fortress on the frontier of the "Empire". There is no date or location given, and not even a name for the so-called "empire". This is because the main theme deals heavily with imperialism, and the mistreatment that has gone on in almost every example of it. Johnny Depp and Robert Pattinson are the "bad" guys checking up on the frontier, and trying to handle the barbarians. Now that we have simple routine out of the way, let me describe how I personally thought this movie was. This film has very important themes, and strong performances, but struggles to really keep your attention. The movie starts off pretty strong, with this rivalry between Johnny Depp (who is brilliant in this by the way), and Mark Rylance. It was highly entertaining to see their ideology duel and it looked like it was going somewhere. However, then we get to the long second act where it basically takes too long at everything. Also, there is no Johnny Depp, or any interesting characters or plot really. Mark Rylance is good, but his character is just wimpy, and not charismatic. He is just utterly weak in almost every sense. He is also kinda creepy with his weird foot fetish scenes (you will know when you see them). It finally picks up in the third half which is carried by Robert Pattinson and Johnny Depp. This isn't because Mark Rylance is bad, but his character on his own is just extremely boring. Everytime Robert or Johnny was on screen, it was very entertaining. I just feel they made Mark's character way more interesting. Besides seldom clunky moments, the acting is pretty good. The actual story is kinda interesting, but I feel we have seen it done in a more entertaining fashion. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying I wanted more action in this movie, I just felt like more conflict was needed especially in the second act. The themes are very important, and it does a good job of showing it (imperialism is bad). The cinematography was okay, it just didn't have a lot of "wow" moments. The soundtrack also didn't strike me much, but was okay. Honestly, if this film didn't have Johnny or Robert, I don't think I would have liked it nearly as much. In the end it is an okay film, but ultimately suffers from being kinda boring the whole second act. I will say that the Johnny Depp and Robert Pattinson performances are worth it in the end. I would recommend renting this movie despite its shortcomings.

It's a slow burn, but if you're ok with that, you're rewarded with strong performances, incredible cinematography and beautiful landscapes and a compelling lead character to root for.

For start waiting for barbarians opens in a best way possible, it doesn't rush anything, makes you intresting from the very beggining, while maintaining the pace. As the story goes on it gets more and more dramatic. Visualy the movie is very well shot, it looks beautiful and has purpose, which unfortunately is rear nowadays, overall cinematography is amazing, score is really good too, acting, for start Robert Pattinson and Johnny Depp have supporting roles but they performed them very well, leading actor, Mark Rylance has lots of acting to do, he is the main source of emotions and in this movie Rylance is just great. There's another character played by Gana Bayarsaikhan who also needs to be very emotional, that is the performance that really stole the show. Overall directing, including working with the actors, storytelling and so on, is 10/10, fantastic.

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.

Watched this movie with no expectations more than a slight interest in late 19th century colonial history. Past mid-point I started to ask myself when it would truly begin, for the story never felt intriguing to me, neither did the characters (although there were one or two scenes with Johnny Deep that were enjoyable). By the end of it I had to search for an explanation of the movie, on the internet, since I was convinced that I had missed some key elements somewhere; but no, to my big surprise I seemingly managed to stay focused enough to catch it all. So what is there to this movie?

In my opinion, it's very focused on delivering a message, so much that it takes away from what could have been at least somewhat of an interesting story; the message itself is clear not long after the beginning of the movie and once you get it, you've had it all.

And what about my interest in history? Well, the movie takes place in "the Empire" and the soldiers came from "the capital", more than that I don't know. Some more action could've helped a little, but no, there's barely any action either to save it. You are in for a slow-paced movie, with a weak story and decent acting, trying to deliver a message.

I have not read the novel, so I had no expectations. It seemed to go slow for me. Once I got myself into the story I rather enjoyed it. Anything with this amazing actor in it I will watch.

I *almost* agree with the reviewers who said this movie is a "slow burn." It's definitely slow, but it doesn't really burn. It kind of smolders, leaving you wishing that the film would at some point actually ignite and draw you in. It never did that for me.

On the positive side, the cinematography was very good and Mark Rylance's portrayal of the Magistrate was fantastic. He's a very talented actor. But I feel that his effort was wasted by poor development of literally every other character in the film, including the so-called "barbarians" for whom we are supposed to feel a great deal of empathy. I found myself disliking Johnny Depp as the Colonel, but not loathing him as I should have.

In short, I kept waiting for the film to quit messing around and just "go there" - I'm not even sure where "there" actually was, or what I would have discovered when I arrived. But it sort of felt like walking in place for 2 hours. Oh well. Barbarians, I hardly knew ye.

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.

I can see why it might not be everyone's cup of tea, but personally I loved the film. It's very different from many other action films I've watched, but I liked its uniqueness

I expected the film with...fear. Because each adaptation of a great novel remains a try . Because the characters and the atmosphere are more posessions of reader than work of the writer . But the film is decent . Grace to cinematography , reasonable solutions for inner monologue of Magister and, no doubts, for the admirable work of Mark Rylance and Greta Scacchi. And, sure, for not bad Colonel Joll proposed by Johnny Depp. Moments of novel are fresh, the intro is just beautiful and it works, maybe better than as adaptation, like a colonial story. And the barbarians as Mongols remains an inspired solution. In my case, only two surprises - the absence of generous belly of Magister and his so large office. But , obvious, it is a reasonable adaptation. So, just decent.

It's just the director, very famed in my country, but he takes scenes to obscene lengths that the movie loses pace, interest, and one forget the story.

The plot is self-apparent, but pretty sure with nice cut and edits, and music can improve.

I loved the theme, I recommend it only if you are patient and can endure long pointless scenes.

Also, the acting is beyond solid.

This is one of the movies that you have to see it first and then read the reviews to make your own impression. It is a amazing movie and a story that shows the history and oppressions that we humans, have done to each other. The story unfolds slowly, with two characters who show a lot of psychological problems, two different characters who show emphaty and inhumanity. At the end of watching this movie, you will be left with a lot of mixed emotions. Anyway, this is not your regular movie or story where you get only fighting and action, give it time and you will love the story.

There was potential for a good story, but it was not here. The movie is quite boring to watch. It looks fantastic and the music really suits the theme but overall I would skip this one based on the bland story.

Although overall not stunning, the parable in this movie is sound. Great acting.

Great Acting by All, Excellent cinematography. Direction of scenes very well done!

The Writing was a Travesty! Far too many Holes in the story line, the pace was like a Flat-line on a heart monitor, no ups or downs, just one long period of sufferance. I would think a Reasonably Large Budget went into the acting talent and cinematography, such a Waste over poor writing and direction.

"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.

Looked good on paper. Three well known 'good' actors , well filmed and so on but really? I always want to like a film when I watch it. It's bloody awful, Mark Rylance wimping about, always on the verge of tears. Weird foot fetish. Not an interesting man at all. It's set in a non existent colonial outpost somewhere in 'Marocstanlia' Pattinson is just picking up the cheque, very little presence. Mr Depp allowed free reign to be 'quirky' (those glasses!) Why will no director ever say "Don't do that Johnny, it's crap" He is a good actor but seems to get away with nonsense on a regular basis. Maybe he is too nice to say no to ? Too long , a lot of shots of not much happening. I understand it examines 'colonialism' but in my opinion it does not do it well. Have not read the book and after this I won't be. Make your own mind up.

I'm a movie goer, I like very much watching great movies, the ones that touch our hearts with their great storyline, and every now and then one comes a long that leaves me think about what I've just watched and reflect its story on my personal life and the world we live in and what's going in it.

I don't think it was about any specific events in the human history, but it captures very well the cruelty of human beings against each other, but at the same time in the midst of this savagery, there is still someone who still have a very good heart, still human, still have the courage to stand up against those savages, even when his own life is put at risk. I believe it shows extremely well how those who speak the truth and warns us of our evil deeds and the unfairness we do daily how they are being badly treated, mocked and ridiculed in our organizations and our societies. This movie is really great.

If the film is to be appreciated it is for the work of the author and scriptwriter Nobel laureate J M Coetzee, not the director Ciro Guerra. Colombian director Guerra was notable as the director of "Embrace of the Serpent" also dealing with colonial actions in Amazonian South America; here he is less spectacular. He might not have been familiar with English language but scriptwriter Coetzee was there. But as a director??? At best, actor Mark Rylance is notable. The Italian director Valerio Zurlini's film "The Desert of the Tartars" (based on Dino Buzatti's novel) made in 1976 has a somewhat similar tale but is way superior as a film to this one.

The desert storm scene is not as spectacular as in Peter Brook's 1979 film "Meetings with Remarkable Men."

I liked Coetzee's original novel so much that I read it twice (something I rarely do). So it's probably not surprising that this movie version ended up disappointing me -- a lot.

In fact, the film reminded me of what the theater critic Robert Brustein termed "a play that dares you to hate it" -- meaning a work that's troubling and unpleasant to sit through and that may leave you feeling depressed, but that tackles a Very Serious Subject, so you feel guilty and morally deficient if you didn't like it. (One of his examples, I recall, was "Children of a Lesser God.")

"Barbarians" isn't really worth hating, but it has certainly sucked all the pleasures out of the novel -- despite the fact that the screenplay was written by Coetzee himself. True, the movie is beautiful to look at -- lots of warm, shadowy interiors lit by fire or by sunlight streaming through a doorway, lots of sunny courtyards, some picturesque desert vistas -- but in fact the artfully composed shots were something of a show-offy distraction.

Frankly, I wish the movie were more like the book (or at least my memory of it). I wish, for one, that it didn't emphasize torture quite so much. There's torture in the book, but it's not so central an element. (In some ways the film almost seems an illustration of Gibbon's contention that "the history of empires is the history of human misery.") I wish the movie's protagonist, the local magistrate, were not such a paragon of virtue: wise, gentle, scholarly, brave, and as eloquent as Thomas More. In the book, this character -- the book's narrator -- is considerably more complex and human, a somewhat soft and sensual man who enjoys his little daily perks; in the movie, Rylance (looking like a troubled George Orwell) appears totally ascetic. In the book, he cared for the abused barbarian girl but also felt an understandable sexual attraction for her; in the movie, he merely seems kindly and compassionate, without an ounce of lust in him.

I wish, too, that we'd seen more of the protagonist's pleasant and interesting daily life, so well described in the book, and that the walled frontier-town setting seemed more real and not so idyllic, almost utopian. I wish the movie's barbarians didn't look quite so ethnically Mongolian; one of the nice things about the book was that it was so unspecific and deliberately ambiguous as to time and place, like a science fiction novel set on a distant planet. And I wish that these barbarians had come across as a more unsettling, perhaps threatening, potentially dangerous presence, as they seemed in the book, instead of as the innocent Third World figures that, for the most part, the movie depicts. (Rylance is one of those left-wing celebrities who constantly denounce Israel -- and at times during the film one could almost hear his glee as he mouthed lines about how "They were here first" and "They'll be here after we leave." I'm sure he prided himself on striking a blow for the Palestinians.)

Ultimately the movie feels like an elaborate two-hour political cartoon, a finger-waggling Critique of Colonialism, a fable about a saintly, long-suffering hero who tries to help a torture victim -- rather than, as the book gives us, a complex, richly imagined world.