I suppose this review is more for American audiences as we are used to shock value and a huge ending compared to thinking and story telling. I admit, I was at a complete loss at the end of this movie until I read people from Europe and their reviews.I didn't laugh one time during it yet most of the reviews found humor in it. Just a culture difference and not in a bad way, I learn. I look at this film in a different way now. The depth to it. Kind of like in a way The Witch was subtle but I got it, this I didn't till later to an extent.The people who are from the Netherlands and such reviewed this in such a way that to Americans, read their reviews. I would of been completely lost without reading it. But makes sense after reading it.

I have mixed feelings about this film especially after reading explanations after viewing it. I was immediately intrigued by this film after watching the trailer months ago. Overall, I enjoyed it although it had a disturbing quality to it that I cannot shake maybe because I didn't fully understand the motivations behind the actions. I had a general idea what was happening throughout the movie but was still confused at times and did not understand all of the symbolism.The storyline regarding the children was the most confusing to me. They had unwavering trust toward Camiel from the get go and were completely docile without showing any humanity. If they would have been portrayed as 'normal' children from the start, then their eventual manipulation would have been much more disturbing. The 'mark of Satan' on the children baffled me as well because they made it seem like some type of procedure had been done with similar effects to a lobotomy or something. This was before I knew it was supposed to be the 'mark of Satan' which the viewer previously saw on Camiel as well. I honestly think giving them a brand or a tattoo would have been more effective (but maybe too obvious?).As the film progressed, I kept wondering what is Camiel's goal in all of this as he didn't seem to have any motivation and was just a very intelligent but insane person. Now I understand that he basically was recruiting minions and trying to have 'fun' at it all the while. All of the efforts to manipulate and kill when it did not seem necessary was more or less just a game to achieve desired results. I also don't fully realize why he didn't take the wife who had obviously fallen under his control.If you are a more intelligent person than I (which is likely) and figure out all of the symbolism and motivations while the film happens, I could see this film being very rewarding. With my lack of religious and folklore knowledge, I was admittedly pretty lost at times but still enjoyed it while having a general idea what ultimately was happening. If you know the story and everything ahead of time, I could actually see this being kind of boring and unrewarding. So basically, I fell in the middle and liked the movie but could see myself on either side of the fence depending on some prerequisite knowledge.

Before writing this review read some other reviews written here. Some of them clarified some of the movie's symbolism, which was useful for me as I felt rather confused when the movie unfolded. I do like surrealistic movies now and then but the second part of the movie and the ending left an unsatisfactory feeling. Besides being unable to really grasp the symbolism the movie started to feel predictable after a while. Never did it felt like Borgman's intentions could be stopped. After the first cracks appeared it was obvious that the castle would crumble. By not being able to connect to the victims I couldn't really care too much about it. I did love the acting and the whole atmosphere of the movie. What made it even more memorable was that I am Dutch myself. The language that was used sounded very archaic at times. As a viewing experience a mixed bag overall but possibly worth watching a second time after reading some more interpretation.

'Borgman' is a fun film. Even though director Alex van Warmerdam said it is his first suggestive film, there is plenty in here that leaves none to the imagination. And even though he denied that the film is a social commentary, there are quite a few clear examples of just that, almost like sound bites from this modern day and age. Then, he went on and simply took the folklore figure Alp (check out 'Nachtmahr' by Johann Heinrich Füssli), and made it a main motif in the behaviour of the leading character. So, no, 'Borgman' is not an original film (although van Warmerdam has a peculiar own style - which I like on a visual level, but as far his absurd sense of humour goes, it's hit and miss), but it is still fun. And there's at least one original idea in here, that of the people who are being killed, whose heads are cemented into buckets and thrown (upside down) into a lake... what wonderful, lugubrious imagery that brings to the screen.The story of a couple of intruders sowing discord within a closed family system is not new at all (it can well be compared to 'Rosemary's baby' in some important respects), but 'Borgman' has a few aces up his sleeve. First off, Jan Bijvoet is pretty much perfect in the lead role, and Hadewych Minis complements his eerie role with much excited naivety. Then there's the big modern house, which was built for the film, that adds to the atmosphere. And finally, the way these intruders operate, is perfectly organized, with on the one hand no consideration for the human lives that they take, but on the other hand they act with much care for the children who are soon to be taken into the group.As far as the genre classification 'thriller' goes, it's actually much more than just that. There's some drama, comedy (I only found there to be a few things a little funny, though), mystery and horror in here as well.A good 7 out of 10 for now.