Irreversible

Rating:
Summary: don't believe the hype
Review: Two scenes: a murder, and a rape. Yes they both are really graphic, but it's not what turned me off. I just found the movie to be extremely boring. It's well made, well acted (dupontel was fine, vincent cassel was good, as usual). But my god...after the rape scene I had the urge to fast forward the movie. The film is flat, offers nothing interresting. I don't see what Gaspar Noe was trying to show. It all looks like a very nice marketing experiment. Don't believe the hype...

Rating:
Summary: The greatest film that I have ever seen
Review: IRREVERSIBLE is the greatest film that I have ever seen. The traces of other films are indeed perceptible on its canvas. And yet it is absolutely singular, absolutely unlike anything else in the history of cinema.

People go on and on about how "disturbing" this film is. On a mundane level, the film is "disturbing," of course. But I personally found the film just, morally unambiguous, and even beautiful.

It is simultaneously the ugliest and most beautiful of all films.

The film's message is not, as most people claim, that "time destroys all things." This is a painfully banal cliche, and, yes, it is plastered onto the surface of the film as if it were a billboard. The film's reverse order gives the lie to this stupid cliche. We are discussing a film that contradicts its own title: "Irreversible" reverses everything. The film says: yes, time destroys all things, but time itself can be destroyed.

Because the camera swirls around in a disorienting way at the beginning of the film (and at other points, as well, suggesting the reversibility of time), the spectator is initially unaware that the film starts with a scene of brutal vengeance. Nor does one understand, at this point, why this vengeance takes place. This effect of disorientation prevents the spectator from forming a moral judgment and condemning the bloody act of revenge.

The final scene of bliss (the "end" of the film is its chronological beginning) contains such pathos that it is absolutely overpowering: now the spectator finally recognizes (a recognition that comes by way of a feeling) that rape destroys human life. The woman who is raped, Alex (Monica Bellucci) is mourned at the close of the film (against Beethoven's seventh symphony); her assailant, whose violation mirrors her violation, is not.

Marcus is Alex's current lover. Pierre is Alex's former lover, an older man. Marcus shows infinitely more devotion toward Alex than her former boyfriend: he is the true spirit of justice and revenge in the film. Pierre, by contrast, is self-absorbed, stupid, and morally weak: out of fear, he is reluctant to avenge the crime committed against his former girlfriend. I suspect that he resents Alex for having chosen another man over him.

If you are a man, this film will make you feel ashamed that you are.

In the bedroom scene, Marcus reveals that he is, similarly, the rapist's double. Watch this scene carefully, and you will see what I mean.

Likewise, Pierre is quite similar to the anonymous passer-by who witnesses the rape in the tunnel (the tunnel is a figure that is used throughout the film) and yet does nothing to prevent it.

Those who run from the theater in horror are just as cowardly as that passer-by.

Rating:
Summary: Devil in the flesh
Review: This is a remarkable movie on many accounts and, unless you spooked by its 'controversy' trumpeted in the media, you oughta see it. A hint: if you appreciated 'Once Upon a Time in America' - you should be well-prepared. The hard-hitting sequence of brutal acts in the beginning of the movie is undoubtedly to make you, the viewer, suffer with the victims IRREVERSIBLY. And there is no way around it, unless you want a film about something else. The director is thoughtful enough, though, to make it reversible, at least for us, by flipping the time backwards. This film is about the oldest collisions of humanity: temptation by evil, paradise lost and suffering of innocents. It is very compassionate, even poetic, and has zero cynicism. In short, it is a moral tale told the way that makes you GET IT. A+!

Rating:
Summary: From Julie Andrews to Gaspar Noé
Review: I had my first cinematographic shock at 4 with "Mary Poppins", and my last one at 41 with "Irréversible".
I believe in the beauties of this World but I'm not blind.I know where Evil can make its nest...in the heart of Males!
That's what "Irréversible" is about.
Gaspar Noé tells us so, in his own special unconfortable way.We can't bear him a grudge for that...he is an Artist!
See "Irréversible" twice!
One time for the physical shock and a second time for the emotional and symbolic side.
"Irréversible" stinks, but this is the smell of Life!
Between Julie Andrews and Gaspar Noé, my Heart can't choose!

Rating:
Summary: Undue Violence
Review: I rated this film *1* out of *5* because I had to abandon my viewing. The violence was graphic beyond what is tolerable for a person with sensibilities within what might be considered normal. I am no prude; this is the first film I ever abandoned due to violence. I am male and if I ever _do_ abandon a film, I will abandon it out of boredom -- not violence. Stay away.

Rating:
Summary: Kubrick gone hardcore
Review: _Irreversible_ is without doubt a disturbing film-- not only because of the intensity of its violence, but also for what it seems to be saying about human nature.

"Time destroys all things" is the over-arching thesis to Gaspar Noe's film. We begin by seeing the characters' reactions to the events around them, then we see the events themselves. Continuing on, we get to observe the characters before the life-changing events, and finally the movie closes on a picture of the lives of the three main characters before tragedy struck. The film is filled with Stanley Kubrick references, and in more than one way it can be seen as a 99-minute visual dissertation on many of Kubrick's themes. The structure itself can be seen as an homage to Kubrick a la 2001, with _Irreversible_'s final seconds tracking backwards to a universe-creating Big Bang.

A conversation at the beginning of the film between two unintroduced characters is telling. It asks us how to feel about criminal acts. "Some bad deeds are just deeds. Everyone thinks they're Mephisto," one of the men says. Depending on your view, what follows is either a shocking destruction of that idea, or a gripping truth the events of the film prove.

The film is perhaps one of the most confrontational ever made. Consisting of scenes shot with one take and sometimes with one camera, it lends a voyeuristic quality to the proceedings. We are shown everything, and Noe is not the kind director who will cut away to imply action or violence. Like life itself, everything is permitted, and we can quite leisurely let our eyes rest upon whatever they will; it is assured us somehow that the nastiest parts will be ready for viewing onscreen at any time. As such, the viewer is directly implicated in all of what he or she sees. It is this quality that I believe has made the film so disturbing. Camera movements, cutting and the soundtrack all combine for a strange experience-- almost as if a vivid, lucid hallucination.

Of the events of the film themselves, you may find yourself leaving the theater and wanting an explanation, like the character of Pierre. Yet as the film itself shows, the irrational and the primal are what is guardian at these gates. There isn't much room for reason-- consider that the main characters are supposedly teachers. Here unfortunately they are the pupils, and reality is doing the instructing.

The film's verdict on humanity is not exactly pleasant. Some may be disgusted at the way it plays with contentment and innocence, as if enjoying its destruction. Yet to say that is oversimplifying. Rather, the film quite carefully shows a respect for innocence and contentment, even as it tells us-- screams at us-- that it cannot always be. "You don't think it can happen to you, and then it does. It can happen to all of us."

Is vengeance a human right? Are feelings of frustration, sexual inadequacy, humiliation and all other dark corners of our collective psyche something we truly cannot help letting control us at junctures? This is not an easy question. But if we do not feel sorry for La Tenia, perhaps this shows that justice has been served. Yet what happens to Pierre remains bitterly ironic.

Perhaps we are all criminals. If so, we need to deal with this fact, and deal with it differently then the characters in the film did-- if possible. Time destroys all things, and this can be a consolation, or a bitterness, or both.

Rating:
Summary: NO escape!
Review: THERE IS no ESCAPE FROM THIS FILM!
if you put the dvd in the player, you have to see it!
if you like memento/i stand alone/combat shock/possession/trouble every day!

.... then you have to see this!
and if you order all, then order at "amazon.fr" the box with both films irreversible and seul contre tous! including the soundtrack disc. in a great box-package!

Rating:
Summary: Just say Noe
Review: The recent acclaim for Gaspar Noe's new film "Irreversible" is clearly a case of the emperors new clothes. The controversial film starts off as an assault on the senses but quickly fizzles out and becomes an exercise in tedium. Due to the reverse order storytelling gimmick, this top heavy film falls victim to its own theme - time destroys everything - and ultimately collapses under its own weight. Aside from the early scenes of brutality (a graphic head bashing & the infamous 10 anal rape) the film offers little else - least of all anything resembling complexity or psychological insight. Instead, Noe presents scene after scene of meaninglessly contrived after-the-fact foreshadowing, self indulgent film student aesthetics and laughably amateur (not to mention excruciatingly dull) actor workshop improvisations - some of which make the endless rape scene feel subliminal. What Noe seems to be aiming for is a kind of Peckinpah/Cassavetes hybrid, but what he attains is the cinematic equivalent of anesthesia. Don't believe the hype - the emperor wears Noe clothes.

Rating:
Summary: Brutal, shocking, amazing! A Stunner!
Review: Movies like this don't come around too often. Yes, this is an extremely violent film. Yes, there is a rape scene that seems like it was really happening, and is VERY hard to watch. Was it worth paying $9 to see? My answer: Not that I am into sadistic violence or cruelty, but I saw it twice.

The way this story is told in reverse order from ugliness to serenity is what entices me the most about this film. Noe is really communicating something here that I feel everyone should see, as shocking and intense as it is.

The camera work here is fantastic, the acting equally fantastic. I applaud Gaspar Noe for having the courage to produce a film this bold and moving. I won't see a film this engaging for quite some time. It only played at the local Landmark theatre for two short weeks. Bring on the DVD. I want many of my friends to experience this humanistic vision. It is a ride well worth it.

Rating:
Summary: Violent Material
Review: Be urgently warned that this film may make you sick to your stomach by it's extremely wild hand held camera movements and/or by it's intensely graphic physical violence. However, that doesn't mean this film isn't worth seeing!

As I entered the cinema the usher warned me, "This film contains very violent images and some people find it too disturbing." This is the first time I can remember being so urgently warned. The film begins rather confusingly with a shot of Philippe (Philippe Nohon I) speaking to another man. He was the main character of Gaspar Noe's previous film Seul Contre Tous and here he is playing the same man some time in the future after the end of that movie. However, the short discussion between these two men is irrelevant to the plot of this film's story. The camera then winds down to a club called Rectum where there are ambulances and arguing occurring. Obviously something horrible has taken place. Through the rest of the film we are told the story of what did happen through scenes moving back in time. The intense confusion of the club, with it's just visible characters and camera shots careening almost out of control, slows down over the course of the film. So do not worry that you will be made to feel so horrifically dizzy over the entire film. The very sad tale that follows explains the motivations that drive people to such rash, terrifying actions.

Representations of violence have always been hotly debated and this film seems to set itself as one of the supreme examples how violent a film can be with its extremely realistic killing and rape scenes. What's more horrible is that these scenes are so heavily prolonged that they seem to take hours. Because the performances by the main actors Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel are so committed we feel that the dramatic events are that much more real. Leave it to French cinema to push the limits as by historic examples of extreme films it has produced. Another aspect which makes this film markedly French is it's inclusion of the long scene of a man and a woman partly or completely unclothed wandering through their apartment meditating on love and life in between sex. (This recurs often in French cinema. See Le Mepris.)

Part of being made to feel so intensely uncomfortable is that your senses are put on alert and your thoughts are mixed with emotion. Only much later, in contemplating your memories of the events are you able to logically consider what you've seen. This film leaves you with lasting impressions which force you to meditate on the nature of violence, love and despair long after watching it. If you watch this film thinking in terms of representation you could make the argument it is homophobic in the way it begins with shots of a dark, seedy, out of control gay club and ends with a shot of a happy and bright heterosexual environment. Nevertheless, with the strong impact this film causes, it does make you to think very seriously about what it shows you. Some people may just not have the stomach for such a BIG attack of the senses.