Irreversible

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: Difficult to Watch
Review: "Irreversible" is one of the most violent and cruel films I have ever seen. The rape scene is brutally honest, shot in one long eight minute take without interruption, and the beating at the beginning is so graphic you feel as if the camera is participating in the violence, rising and falling with the blunt instrument.
And yet, because of the films honesty, it becomes a film that does not at all condone violence. Instead, it seems to demonstrate it's unnecessary existence in society as it completely destroys two lives, seemingly bound to this destiny by fate as the movie is told in reverse.
Brilliant, althought unwatchable to most.

Rating:
Summary: Pretentious Sh(l)ock
Review: This is probably the single most unwatchable movie I have ever seen, even more unwatchable than Kiarostami's Taste of Cherry, albeit for completely different reasons. The latter, despite its ponderous rumination and sluggish meditativeness is at the very least saying _something_, but this one is pure pain. Maybe the sadistic expression of pleasure inflicted upon a certain female in the movie is actually intended to be vicariously
suffered by the unfortunate viewers, through a sadistic expression of "art" by the gleeful director.

What, pray tell, is the point of this junk? That time moves in a direction so unabashedly cruel to humanity that trivial actions and accidents would ultimately decide irrevocable consequences? Hardly new. That happiness is only this fragile temporal sequence from which the harsh cruelties of life are only possibilities away? Or that rape is a crime so visually shielded from our experience that only under the pretension of art could its reality be made immediate?

If only the film would compete in the art of being obnoxious, it would certainly emerge the winner without too much sweat in the way. This film, cynical for the sake of cynicism, violent just because it can be, stylish without substance (unless it's the sniffed or injected type), is every pimply-faced dork's wet dream.

Rating:
Summary: A failure
Review: I found this film difficult to watch. This was not because of the violence, unpleasant though it is, but because in nearly every respect the film fails. The camera work in the early stages is simply irritating and pretentious. The continual girations of the camera creating visual frustration rather than conveying a mood, which is presumably the intention. By telling the story in reverse you know all you are interested in knowing about the characters (who I found uninteresting) and the plot 2/3 of the way through the film thus making the final 1/3 tedious. It comes across as a film student's attempt to make a controversial film.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: The film is brilliant, Noe is brilliant, the actors are brilliant. This movie really does touch every one of your senses. It is definatly not a movie for the faint of heart and definatly not a movie to watch with the 'fam. If you appreciate good movies you should get it. Let me stress again that this film is brilliant, but do be prepared because you are in for a grotesque hour of film.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful nihilism
Review: I don't know where to begin. I never deal with a sysnopsis when I review on here because I feel there are already plenty of them. The story is extremely simple - a rape/revenge story told in reverse. This film is often compared to Momento due to this reverse storytelling. However, whereas Momento is a puzzle movie, and the device seems more gimmick then anything else, Irreversible uses the technique to convey its message more powerfully. That message is, quite simply, one of inevitability and if you are not moved by the end of the film, then you must just be in shock.

The violence is intense, but hardly excessive. The beginning of the film is frenetic but, as it progresses/regresses, it becomes more and more serene. Every aspect of the film - editing, cinematography, the pacing of the dialouge, setting - support this form. The effect is powerful, intellectually and emotionally. This film is not about shock and it will be remembered as a milestone in later years.

Rating:
Summary: Amateurish, unconvincing, lousy effort
Review: First of all, the cameraman needs to learn to hold the camera steady in his hands. Be prepared for 95 minuts of shaky, unstable, jerky camera movements on your screen. After the first five minutes I got seasick. Also the movie is shot in dark colors, and usually you have hard times seeing the details, and only observe moving silhouettes (in addition to the graininess and annoying jerky camera movements). The first murder scene in the basement of a sleazy gay club is not worth watching at all, as it tells nothing, signifies nothing, and from the cinematographic viewpoint made especially badly and unconvincing. The rape scene is also very unnatural and laughable, making me think that the movie had no director whatsoever. All in all the movie is a big waste of time - the storyline is one-dimensional and boring, the acting is poor, the directing is virtually non-existent, and the camerawork is the worst in years. I don't know why all those critics were raving about the flick, but even the mediocre Kill Bill would be much better worth of your time and money.

Rating:
Summary: Brutal Honesty.
Review: A movie is a vehicle by which it detaches the viewer from their real life and absorbs them into the fantasy life of the film. Fantasy and Detachement are the number one reasons why movies make so much money. Holloywood banks on those two things, sO much so that I believe that very few films are allowed to remind us of our realities. Disturbing and brutal films such as Irreversible do the opposite. They suck you in only to slap you in the face with realty. Movie-goers are not used to this. I wasn't used to it either, but that's why I liked it. I realized that in my own mind I had glossed over violence and rape. Thinking it's always the nice and clean situations of "Law and Order" or CSI. This is not always true and this movie proves it. Did it have to be so brutal in it's depiction of those crimes? That's debatable. What's not debatable is it's affect. You are in no way Detached from anything while watching this movie

Rating:
Summary: you want blood...?
Review: i will try and waste as few words as possible on this review.
poor pretentious technique.
poor uninspired dialouge.
poor one note acting.
aestheticlly vacant.
hypocritical expolitation-oriented sex and violence (obviously digitally manipulated)
arrogant, smug and unreasonablely nasty to its intended viewers.

want to feel sick to your stomach and disturbed without any logic other than to feed the ego of yet another french manipulator of art? if not i would suggest watching "audition" instead; a film with equally realistic violence, but also bearing an aethetic sensabilty, honesty and respect for those who would turn to horror as entertainment.

Rating:
Summary: A tremendous shock
Review: Gosh... Where to start?

First of all, there probably will be spoilers in this comment (I don't dare call it a review), so if you haven't seen the movie and intend to, you should probably look away. Or maybe not, if your intent is to prepare yourself to watch it.

If you're reading this, then you've probably read most of the other comments so I won't offer any synopsis, you know what it's about in terms of storyline. However, NOTHING can prepare you for this emotional devastation that is Irreversible. It's a primal assault on the senses and emotions, unlike any other I've ever experienced. One word of advice: if you really want to try to get to the core of this work, watch it until the very end. Beware though: it is literally NOT for the faint of heart. And I don't mean queasy stomachs by that, although those sensitive in that area should also think thrice before deciding to watch this.

The first quarter of the movie is an absolute abomination. The first twenty minutes are something that will probably stay in your mind for life. It is that barbaric and gruesome. I freely admit, I could watch only part of the murder that takes place in the club. I had to avert, even close, my eyes. And I had to lower the sound, completely, until the monstrous deed was done. This sequence is formidably potent, and has the power to make you feel literally close to panic. For the record, I've seen it all too, in terms of horror movies and the like, so I've seen much more than my fair share of gore ;-) Or at least I thought so. The "problem" is that it goes far beyond just gore on film. I don't think I can clearly depict here in mere words the why and how, the reason, regarding why it's so brutal, so raw a shock, but the fact is, it's a lightning bolt right into your cortex.

Frankly speaking, the infamous rape scene coming some fifteen minutes after that is not nearly as traumatizing. Sure, it's atrocious, hard, viciously brutal. But honestly, what do you expect from a rape? Of course it's gonna be one the most despicable act that you'll see, no surprise here. I digress, but what did people expect of that scene before the scandals and controversy began? It's for sure what a rape should be: violently repulsive and merciless. However, except for a few seconds at the scene's end, it's nowhere near as primitive and graphically indescribable as the first -and only- murder in the film.

All this being said, this work is THE most vibrant anti-violence statement I've ever seen put on film. There is no embellishment of any kind here, no stylish editing, smart cuts, slow motion... It shows violence -and all of it- only as it should be seen: repulsive to the extreme, blindly and uselessly destructive, utterly unable to resolve anything, and as the most terrifying dead-end that exists; indeed, having totally irreversible results. There is no coming back from such acts, no redemption either. Man just has to live with his obsession of being stronger than his neighbour, whatever it takes. It's also, let's admit it, a very cruel movie, in terms of its resolution -yes, the beginning of the movie as such, as the character of Pierre destroys the wrong man, and the rape's perp is not only alive and kicking, but apparently rejoicing at the sight of another act of terrifying violence. That, by the way, puts an end once and for all to all the ridiculous comments I've heard made that the movie was an apology for revenge. This is in total opposition with what really happens in this story, and on the screen. It's up there for everyone to see. The film is much too clever to try to deliver a lesson however, but it's obvious to anyone who watched this closely that Noe does not condone violence of any kind, but condemns it without appeal. He just gives a cold, harsh look at whatever is sleeping -or not- inside ALL of us. There is no clear cut, prefabricated opinion to have about the madness and rage these people dive in. This is part of the unease we feel as we watch... The characters are likeable, but blend. Anyone could be in their place.
The movie shows it as real as it gets, not only the violence of course, but in terms of witnessing plain, normal people who are going straight to hell because of uncontrollable circumstances. All it takes is nine minutes, and dark, nasty chance. All of this is not preachy, by the way, just the embryo of reflections I have from seeing this film a few days ago. I'm only beginning to feel good -no, strike that, NORMAL again just now. So this scribing is probably not very structured or coherent. ;-)
There's much to be said about the arresting camera work, the infernal soundtrack (the synthesizer drone during the club scene evokes a demented and anguished monochord lament), and mostly the quality of the acting -suffice to say that all the actors in the movie do a superb job of capturing truth.

In the end, Irreversible is a most unique, if sobering, experience. A traumatizing experience, but ultimately a rewarding one, as there is good and beauty in the film too. It's quite a paradoxical feeling though, and starkly ironic; this beauty is all the more dramatic because as we are witness to it, we do know at the same time it's about to be irremediably destroyed soon. That's also why it's obvious the movie could only be edited as it is, telling the story backwards, comparisons with Memento be damned.
So finally, whether or not you'll be willing to pay quite a lot in terms of emotional cost to experience the power of this film is all the question.

Good luck...