Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Chonesday It's one of the most original films you'll likely see all year, which, depending on your threshold for certifiably crazy storylines, could be a rewarding experience or one that frustrates you.

Sonofamoviegeek I like artsy films for the simple reason that they make me think. And Brownian Movement's point to ponder is, I believe, what sort of mental illness creates such a closed personality as Sandra Huller's character. At least, that's what I think it is. Such a study requires character development and dialogue that leads to discover exactly what makes the lead character tick. Instead of dialogue we are treated to long silences between characters or without characters in empty bedrooms or bathrooms. Whatever dialogue exists is in such basic English or French that it made me wonder if the scriptwriter was fluent in either language.Any action that takes place between the sterile room or scenery shot is similarly sterile. The sex scenes are so devoid of feeling that they can only be classed as porn and not well made porn at that. The only compliment I can pay part 1, where most of the sex takes place, is that it answers a burning question that must be on every movie-goer's mind: Do German actresses have Brazilians? If Sandra Huller is a typical example, apparently not.Not recommended unless you need to experience terminal boredom.

makers6947-465-331326 In the Forties radio dramas used to use up allotted time with dramatic music passages, or by having lengthy walking scenes or stage business that didn't really advance the story or develop characters ("Here's the doorbell. I'll just ring it. Should I ring it again?"). Apparently the director of The Brownian Movement discovered the cinematic version of this. Have a movie 96 minutes long with very little dialogue and almost no action. Even the sex scenes were static, stopping just short of being still photographs; uninspired, photographs at that.There is the potential here for a story: Woman with handsome husband has an unaccountable fetish for sleeping with unattractive men. Unfortunately that story wasn't presented in this movie. Instead we have dreadful, unending scenes of people looking thoughtful. Not pained. Not horrified. Not terrified. Just thoughtful. Maybe they're bored. I can see why they might be.Here is a fundamental truism of fiction: Your characters need to have a motivation for their behavior. It can be concealed for a while and unveiled suddenly or gradually, but ultimately your characters have to have reasons for behaving as they do. Not in this film.I tried to discern what most of the budget for this movie went into. Obviously it was Ms. Huller's salary. The rest of this pretentious nonsense couldn't have cost more than a few thousand dollars for plane tickets. There were no tricky or interesting camera shots; just painful drawn-out shots of nice interiors (maybe some money was spent on hiring locations). Since there was nothing going on, and not much said, the need for a crew was probably minimal. We're supposed to think of this as arty and deep. No it was someone's way of getting someone (a government agency?) to finance a film that has no substance and doesn't do anything.I assume someone pocketed the money saved from not buying a real screenplay or hiring sound stages where real action could be filmed, or a sound person, or a makeup person, or much of anything else, for that matter. It is surprising that a movie which showed so much of Ms. Huller's attractive epidermis could be so excruciatingly dull and silly. It is so stultifying that her nudity can't save it.

punishmentpark 'Brownian Movement' consists of beautiful cinematography in individually slow (if at all) moving, contemplative scenes, but there ís a big picture, with a clear narrative. A female doctor who conducts (unspecified) medical experiments with medicines, rents her own personal 'laboratory' to have sex with a number of male patients she picks out at work. She has an attractive husband, but the men she chooses, she picks for their physical details, such as body hair, pockmarkedness or obesity. In three parts she (1) experiments, but when she meets one the 'guinea pigs' at her husband's workplace she reacts with great fear and anger, (2) she sees a psychiatrist with her husband, is deemed unfit to be a doctor for not recognizing her ethical conduct was wrong and (3) she moves with her family to India for their aftermath.The story seems strange, but maybe we should put that on the 'culprit' here, the woman doctor. Her reaction to accidentally meeting one of the men she had an affair with, is bizarre, but does show how much she had been living inside some sort of bubble up until that moment. Then, the visits to the psychiatrist don't tell us much either, except that, eventually, she is dismissed from her profession for being unethical and not recognizing her mistakes. What if she had never met that man again, I couldn't help but wonder...The role of Charlotte seems a natural progression for Sandra Hüller after the amazing 'job' she did in 'Requiem'. She is again wonderful here, and Dragan Bakema, though mostly playing a supporting (and less intense) role, did fine, too.All in all, I really enjoyed this (arthouse) film. The title, I learned elsewhere, is supposed to have been based on the phenomenon Brownian motion, which you can read all about elsewhere on the net. To me, this could have done with a different title, and I didn't see any need for it being divided up into three parts either; it felt like one organic story about a peculiar woman and her troubles in love and life. Keep it simple if that's what it is, I would say. Maybe I've missed some stuff, or maybe I don't care too much about it... or maybe I'll get more of it a next time around, because I'd like to see this one again sometime. Until then, I won't call it pretentious...A big 8 out of 10.

Fish_chips This is an exceedingly fine film. It explores issues that arise when a marriage is put under a "pressure test" – through its exploration of cause and effect it raises the challenging question of 'what is the nature of marriage?' The issue is "what is enough?' as one of the characters asks. As the wife and husband cope with events the camera focuses on their faces for very long durations of time; this is done in total silence so we, the viewer, is given the luxury of having time to explore our own thoughts about the progress of the film, and how each character does (or one thinks, should) react.This film flies its 'Art House' flag with pride, being slow and low key (but beautifully set and filmed). It is a film in which deep thought has gone into its making, and to do it justice it deserves the same respect from the viewer. Watch it, and see if it gives you cause to ponder the significant issues that it raises.