robtanson There is comedy and tragedy, and I enjoyed it. There are beautiful women, and the men are true enough to real life. Cynicism is the theme. Coincidence is the necessary gimmick for tying the three soapers. It is a deep portrayal of modern folkways and mores. Because I as an American had to read subtitles, I missed many nuances. Deceit is certainly omnipresent. Human beings are imperfect, because nothing that I know is without a downside.It's a jungle out here.Human wrecks and car wrecks aren't rare.If you are happy, you ought not fool with cynically minded reviewers a la me, but thanks.It has been an awful 2016, and our new president will soon take power--rots of ruck.. This film is not happy ever after.This film isn't consoling nor redemptive.This film captures some of the absurdity of life, and that's why I like European portrayals of reality.This film is not warm and fuzzy nor phony, and does deserve the recognition it achieved.I am sure it bothers folks because it is so harsh.Unfortunately life is not a fairy tale.Warning, Hollywood corniness it ain't.They want ten lines, so I have to be redundant, and such finagling is about our reality too.

kenjha This film tells three intertwined stories of the residents of an apartment building. This style of filmmaking has become popular of late, following the early success of Robert Altman ("Nashville" and "Short Cuts") and Alejandro Inarritu ("Amores Perros" and "Babel"). This one, however, falls far short of those films. Of the three episodes, the first one is the most interesting, featuring a nurse in a loveless marriage having a brief affair. The other two episodes concern low-lifes making each other's lives miserable. Neither the characters nor the stories are particularly interesting. Of course everything comes together in a predictable finish.

Moongate2000 With little budget (as the Austrian movie "industry" unfortunately has) obviously a director has to walk with different shoes than Hollywood. "Antares" is a good example of how to make the best of it.In my point of view very often certain narrative concepts become so much in the thick of things, that characters turn secondary (I don't mean to say I don't like pictures which walk that way). IMO it is refreshing to see movies which succeed not to abstract too much, movies which do not take away too much from their characters because for example various storytelling concepts are requiring it.With "Antares" for ~115minutes you get insight into various living conditions in Austria before something crucial happens. You see how people are, what their main problem is. And yes of course there is a clear idea behind this picture, but as I said before this idea is not imposed on the viewers. Solitude and isolation are crucial topics in "Antares". The entanglement of life's is another. No doubt in a way several directors in this world have dealt with these very human aspects already. Only I haven't seen any other dealing with it in such genuineness like Spielmann - especially I haven't seen many other films from my country which managed to do that ! In a short: Authentic and real characters. Terrific writing and terrific acting. I especially enjoy the cynicism.All adds up to a real good austrian movie.

Chris_Docker Antares gets its name from the ancient Greeks and means Anti-Ares. Ares is, of course, the God of War, also called Mars by the Romans. Antares is linked to the planet Mars because they are both about the same colour and brightness, so it is easy to get them confused. The official site tells us, "The film comprises three interconnected stories that are in a sense three 'Scorpio stories' with intense emotions, both positive and negative: sex, jealousy, violence, crisis and death." If you bear that in mind, it will give you a clue to the substance of this finely observed film, but the movie hooked me before I knew that, making fine comparisons that easily confound moral judgement.Antares begins with a car crash (one that takes us quite unawares) and continues an intense pace for the first third of the movie, including explicit sex scenes. But the first story is that of Eva, a nurse, wife and mother. She becomes involved in an intensely passionate affair. The second story concerns a check-out girl, obsessively jealous of her partner who pastes billboards for a living, and lying to him to ensure his 'love'. The final story concerns a divorced couple where the man will not let go and the wife has started seeing someone else. The three stories fully intertwine only at the end.Each story involves a couple and a third party, none are 'whiter than white'. But there are important differences, not least in how we view and judge them. Using 'truth' as a yardstick gets us nowhere as none of them are particularly honest – although the most violent person (the abusive husband of the last story) is probably the least dishonest. In the first couple (a white collar family, listening to Schubert, raising a teenage daughter with love and care), we somehow feel that the infidelity is less 'wrong' than in the later example. It might even be the safety valve, without which the couple (who communicate politely but not very effectively) would have reached breaking point, hurting everyone but especially the child. In the second example, both partners are trying to control the other and we instinctively feel they are more selfish and less sympathetic. A yardstick becomes, who is hurt? What was the intention to hurt or nurture? Their motives to each other seem shallower, their methods more devious, they are less likable. They are also less interesting – given that this film will appeal to a highbrow audience, do we judge them worse because they are poor and less intelligent? But then we see the third scenario – a brutal, dangerous husband. Can the wife be blamed that she has 'moved on'? the husband is externally convincing, but we learn he has raped and beaten her and she is in fear of him. His 'reality' is a different one to hers. Compared to the billboard-poster, who seemed such a reprobate a minute ago, he is a monster.Notice how our perceptions and judgements of the characters are altered as well by the use of nudity in different ways, by the use of humour (a person seems less 'bad' when they are funny, irrespective of the facts), and by our comparisons with 'better' and 'worse' individuals. Trying to make moral judgements becomes a very confusing affair, but most people will be able to distinguish between the non-violent and almost loving deception of the first couple compared to the violent triangle of the last story. The effective attempt to 'do the right thing' in spite of overriding passions manifests itself differently.If you found movies like Closer intriguing as a moral primer, take Antares on for a more difficult conundrum. It takes someone of considerable skill to weave such a tapestry effectively, and Götz Spielmann distinguishes himself in Antares as a director of profound insight, considerable talent and great artistic integrity.