Irreversible

Rating:
Summary: Disturbing, hyperkinetic, and worth it
Review: This is one hell of a movie: difficult to watch (in the extreme), extended use of shakey cam, overall an uneasy movie-going experience. But if you can get through all that, I think it's worth it to see this flick. There are few films like this out there, or made, ever. Irreversible is an exercise in agit prop by Gaspar Noe, whose previous film I Stand Alone was along the same lines though not as extreme.

Irreversible prods you into thinking, but more strongly into feeling. You should look away during the horrendous and very bloody scenes but you can't (at least I couldn't, and I'm squeemish). I'm glad I saw this film and I'm glad it was made. I should warn you, however, that the film may stay with you for a while after you watch it, it did with me. I was upset in a low-level way for a few hours after viewing it. So be warned.

This is one of the few films I will never see again; there's no need. The bottom line: I would see 20 films that were as bloody and violent and visually assaultive as this one than huge Hollywood hits like Bringing Down the House. Gaspar Noe had a real personal reason to make this film, and it comes through every brutal frame.

Rating:
Summary: Very Violent Story of Revenge; NEVER for the Faint-Hearted
Review: Gasper Noe's feature film "Irrersible" is destined to be a topic of hot debate when it was shown in Canne Film Festival. It is reported that during the rape scene that lasts almost 10 minutes, many viewers left the theatre. And there are people who defend it, and people who attack it, as is often the case with this kind of unusual films. However, instead of joining the debate, I would like to tell what I saw on screen as I remember, even though I was curiously attracted to the ultra-violent story of revenge.

The story, which director Noe thought of very casually, is very simple in itself. Beautiful Alex (Monica Bellucci, real-life wife to Vincent Cassel) is a fiancee of fun-loving Marcus (Vincent Cassel), but one night after a party Alex is raped by a man and moreover her face is heavily smashed by the guy to make her unconscious. Knowing that, Marcus hurries to the culprit with his friend Pierre to a bar for the most violent kind of revenge in the movie history.

Now I warn you. The rape/revenge scenes are both so intense and realistic that some of you might get sick during the course even though you happen to know that Noe used CGIs to enhance the effect of violence. But to be fair, these scenes are, I thought, overlong but nothing gratuitous. Still, it looks as if the director wallows in making us feel uncomfortable, and I admire, without any sarcasm, his skiils so good at that.

Another unusual aspect of the film is that the story goes chronologically backward. Noe insists on this idea so much that what you see first on screen is "the end credit" which rolls up (and see many names of cast, which are printed the wrong way). And you will first see the result of revenge, then revenge itself, and then the cause of the revenge ... and so on. The trip is exactly from hell to heaven, which we know is about to collapse.

And the camera, especially during the first 30 minutes, goes on rolling around so that you may feel seasickness. The rotating motion is NOT that of handy camera of "Blair Witch Project," but the fact remains that we feel very uncomfortable, and we have that subject matter. The noise-like soundtrack is also effective to make us feel uneasy -- like David Lynch's films -- and the actors are so terrifyingly convincing including the rapist Jo Prestia (professinal actor and ex-boxer).

Some audiences try to defend the film by saying that Noe is only trying to tell the truth, and if so, he clearly made his point. And I can understand that viewpoint -- we have seen an equally unsettling rape scene in one Jodie Foster film; and as for violence, Oscar winner Steven Spielberg is not a stranger to violence if you remember his WW2 film. But those films never brought the violence to the forefront as Gasper Noe did. In a sense, that is an admirable thing. But if you want to pay some money for seeing that ... well, if depends. I just happened to think so.

From the purely technical point of view, Director Noe shows his ability to create an unnerving atmosphere. The film is shot in a unique way -- using only one shot for each scene -- so, after one scene starts, it goes on till the scene changes to the next. As this now very rarely used method is employed -- though some of them are the result of post-production work, which pieced together some different takes -- each shot is consequently very long, causing us another reason for having to be patiently following the ever-moving camera, which easily beats that of Brian DePalma.

For all its techinical achievement, "Irreversible" suffers from its own methond of storytelling. Compared with the violent first half, the latter peaceful part looks inevitably much weaker. Sometimes, the back-through-time tactics create an original effect; when we see too frivolous Marcus, who ignores the presence of Alex at party, we feel sense of tragedy and folly of humans, as we know what is going to happen after that scene. The film has some unexpected moments when we think -- imagining "what if" situations which, as you know, are always very futile attempts of humans as every history tells. And of course, I know that by the combination of Alex's heaven and hell, Noe is making his own commentary about our life. The film tells us twice on screen "Time destroys everything" and, right, that's another point. But I am afraid the method is too simple and too obvious, and doesn't hold well not least after such intense violence.

Still you want to see? OK, then, here's some tips for you that might make you understand this one better, which I quote from the booklet I bought at mutiplex in Japan. 1) Noe thought of the concept of "Irreversible" in May, 2001, using Cassel and possibly Bellucci. But as she was to work for two "Matrix" films from September, he had very short time to prepare for actual shooting. 2) They shot the sequences chronologically, I mean in this case, from "heaven" to "hell." 3) You see Philippe Nahon as ex-butcher, who was in Noe's previous films. The dialgues are all ad-lib. 4) Noe had difficulties in "ending" the film (in this case, the most peaceful scene of Mercus and Alex making love). There seem to have been several versions, but he decided on the present one, which shows a poster of one masterpiece film. That film's director, now gone for some years, is famous for a film starring Malcolm McDowell, who played a role of "Alex" -- well, Noe must respect Stanley Kubrick.

As a whole, for my part, I confess I was very much impressed with the film. But because of the nature of the film, I cannot "recommend" this one to you. I wrote down what I know. That's why I give only three stars.

Rating:
Summary: Searing Theatre
Review: Brave. Harsh. Dazzling. The almost documentary-style camera work perfectly compliments this savage tale of violence and the dreams that preceeded it. An important film that should be watched with caution. But watched nonetheless.

Rating:
Summary: In the bowels of the Beast...
Review: I'm french and proud of Gaspar Noé!
I was afraid to see "Irréversible", but I was wrong.Don't listen and don't read the bad reviews.This movie is a glaring journey into the male-nature.Le Ténia is the time-bomb we all have deep inside the darker part of our Soul.The Rectum is where it makes its nest, not a Gay Club.
When I see this movie, I'm not proud to be a man.All the horrors of this World come from men.That's why Gaspar Noé wanted his movie to take place in a brutal, extreme and all-man world.There's no homophobic idea in all this.
Gaspar Noé uses camera to throw up his digust for men, whose victims are always the same:women, children, elderly and all drop-outs of Society.
Don't be afraid of this movie...just be afraid of you!

Rating:
Summary: Truly Twisted
Review: A few of my friends told me about this movie after a late night of drinking and that it was the most twisted film ever made. I decided to watch it after everyone went asleep.

From the first scene to the last scene, I could not take my eyes off the screen. I won't bore you with the specifics because it's better to not know anything about it to get the full effect of what Noe invisioned.

But a word of warning, if you are at all squemish and/or get grossed out by penis shots...This is not the film for you!

Rating:
Summary: A brilliant work of art.
Review: There are two sides to "Irreversible". The first one is violent and disturbing, the second one beautiful and romantic. Since all reviewers from this forum chose the first one, I shall write about the second part of the film, which is beyond greatness. There is a party scene and a subway one that would make any film buff more than happy. And then there is a beautiful and tender love scene between Bellucci and Cassel.

The film is told backwards, ergo, the audience knows the characters' destiny. It's so sad to see them having such a great time together -- laughing and dancing, not knowing how their lives will be forever altered. This is great cinema. Monica Bellucci's performance is incredible -- I can't think of any actress (especially one from Hollywood) who would have accepted to play such a difficult part. Vincent Cassel (he did the voice of Robin Hood in Shrek) and Albert Duponteil are equally good. The whole movie is shot in single-take scenes, most of the dialogue being improvised by these great actors. The film has been directed by Gaspar Noe (Seul Contre Tous) and he brings us his unique vision to the material. The sountrack and the special effects are excellent, too.

If you haven't yet seen "Irreversible" and you have reservations regarding the violent content -- here's a tip for you: watch the second half of the film (where the party scene begins) and then judge for yourself if you want to see what's left out of this complex tragedy. Everybody knows that good and bad co-exist together. "Irreversible" has such a fresh and realistic look to life that in less than a year will probably become a classic.

Rating:
Summary: What thrash!
Review: What a thrash of a movie! Can't see what's the rave all about.
Tries to disguise a poor movie by doing silly things like running it in back to front (it starts with the end of the movie and work itself to the start). In between, one gets tortured by foul language aplenty and worse still a cameraman who seems to have been told by the director to point his camera to anywhere other than where he's supposed to. As a result, certain part of the movie was simply a pain and agony to watch with picture of darkened ceiling, flashing lights and nothing more than that.
Then, there's that attempt at plot. What a pathetic attempt at that. If you manage to figure out the back-to-front sequencing, then it's about a young (good-looking one) lady attending a party and deciding to leave early. On the way home, she got raped (and I believe many thought this is ground-breaking since it takes up a few minutes of groaning and further foul language). Boyfriend left party and found her raped, got raging mad running around looking for the culprit, thought he found the guy in a gay club (here's where you gotta tolerate the camera work mentioned above), got into a fight and his mate with him killed the one he was fighting with. Police arrives, take them away. END OF SHOW!!! Now how's that for plot!
Almost had to shut it off after the first 15 minutes but thought why not tolerate it to see how bad it can be. And believe me, it can be and indeed is VERY bad!
So here it is. A very badly made movie trying to disguise itself as something more than that by violence, nudity and sex. Do you need it?
Oh yes, it's in French so be ready to get through the movie reading subtitles if the above doesn't alert you to what's in store.

Rating:
Summary: Reverse It
Review: When I watched this film, I already new that it was shot in reverse order from all the reviews I have read previously and I still had problems keeping up at times. What also made it confusing was the way the scences were shot, with the camera always spinning around and having to read the subtitles while trying to pay attention to learning characters and plot details. I found the ending or shoud I say the beginning powerful yet bittersweet because Marcus himself didn't get his revenge personally. The film was good enough and held my interest anyway, but I suggest watching it a second time, but this time in reverse order from the last chapter to the first to fully see what you have may have missed.

Rating:
Summary: pointless pretentiousness
Review: I did not like this film but not because of the subject matter. I've seen more graphically intense and unsettling films than this. There were several things with Irreversible that didn't sit well with me. First is the concept of running the film backwards. It's been done before and to much better effect with Memento. Second, the camera angles were annoying. Swirling and twirling the camera in all directions is ok for about fifteen minutes but an entire film's worth of this kind of pretentious tomfoolery is something you would expect a first year film student to do. Third, Irreversible is yet another entry in the recent new wave of sexually graphic French films, simple excuses for directors to indulge in graphic sex and violence with very little story or character development. None of Irreversible's characters are likeable. They all impulsively act out in the dumbest way possible. Marcus is a cokehead jerk who is more concerned about revenge than his possibly dead girlfriend. Pierre is a pathetic loser pining after Alex, his ex-girlfriend. If he disliked Marcus so much then why did he tag along? And Alex was just plain stupid. What woman in her right mind, no matter how angry she is, would leave a party in the middle of the night wearing a dress that fits her like a second skin and walk by herself through a grimy, dimly lit underground pedestrian walkway that even I would be frightened to walk through? And why doesn't she fight back when she's attacked? Her attacler had his knife in hand only for a few moments. Alex's hands were free during most of the attack. She could have kicked, screamed, bit, gouged, scratched, anything at all. Instead, she acquiesces by not putting up much of a struggle at all. It was hard for me to feel sympathetic for her or any of the other characters. I was also a bit put off that Irreversible does not present gays in a very positive light.

I get the reference of heaven/hell and time destroys all things that Noe is trying to make but ultimately I think this was a self-indulgent exercise in seeing how far he could go in making an audience squirm. Irreversible is an unnecessarily gratuitous and graphic film. I can understand how some can view this as powerful and necessary, but I came away feeling like it was weak and pointless. See it and decide for yourself.


Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest and most powerful films I have ever seen
Review: Along with DEEP END, BAD TIMING, UN CHIEN ANDALOU, L'AGE d'OR and very few others, IRREVERSIBLE is one of the greatest and most powerful films 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.

Joseph Suglia, the author of YEARS OF RAGE