Irréversible

While it might be tempting to criticize this film for its graphic content, the description of the film practically states what it's about. So the viewer knows what they're getting themselves into from the get go.

It was controversial for its time and to this day probably still is, given how much screen time is given to the "event" itself. As a result, this show won't be for everyone. Even the violence is quite high impact and hard to watch.

But despite the above and the nauseating camera work, the film did ultimately cause me to sympathize with the victim and tell a harrowing story. I recommend this film but it's not for everyone.

Irreversible is a well acted film with a couple of really confronting scenes. It deals with a taboo topic for its time in graphic detail. I had to stop watching at times and take a break given it's graphic content and nauseating movement of the camera.

A lot has been said about this movie. Yes, there are a couple of brutal and violent scenes. It's even hard to watch at times, but Irreversible is much more than that.

I personally think that the acting is great. There's a natural chemistry between the 3 main characters. Monica Bellucci does a wonderful job as Alex. I give her a lot credit for being involved in such difficult role.

I really like the way the story was told. Some people say that it's a rip off of Memento, and that it doesn't work well in this movie, but I have to disagree. The movie "starts" in a dark way, with a lot of graphic images and violence. But at the end there's this kind of peace, a little dose of happiness..."the calm before the storm". It works really well, and that's what make this a really sad story.

I really recommend this film. But like I said before, it can be hard to watch. Just watch it with an open mind and give it a try.

I'm a sucker for film-world hype--always have been, and probably always will be. When I stumble across a film that is so controversial it inspires both gasps of horror and cheers of praise, I flock to it. There is something intriguing about film's capacity to house unpleasantness, and just how far a director will go in conveying his message (it's always interesting to see whether or not they have a justified reason for the excess). "Irreversible," the backward-structured film from French shock auteur Gaspar Noe ("I Stand Alone") spins you out of control with as much regularity as his camera and characters will allow. It's a curious piece of work designed to provoke the audience--at the beginning, you're disoriented and confused (and, if you're like me, getting carsick from the deliberately erratic camera movements), and even repulsed by the actions of the unfamiliar characters hassling the patrons of a seedy homosexual club, a sequence that ends with a ghastly murder. Okay, then, so what? Clearly the rest of the movie is going to give us an explanation...but would the film have had a similar effect if it were told in a straightforward manner? Is the backward motion of "Irreversible" just a gimmick used by Noe (who is not immune from snobbery and pretension) to draw attention to his film? It's hard to say. Personally, I reject the notion of the reverse storyline being used as a gimmick, simply because of how deliberately the previous pieces fit (certain passages of dialog, particularly a discussion of orgasms that serves as a prelude to one of the most horrifying rape scenes in film history); Noe certainly wasn't asleep in his construction of the film. "Irreversible" displays the type of oppressive misanthropy (the dialog is loaded with racial and homophobic slurs) evidenced in Noe's "I Stand Alone" (the tale of an out-of-work butcher driven to madness by everyone around him), but then pulls back from the hard-edged violence to show a tender humanity that might be even more startling, since the film could have easily played itself for nothing but shock value the entire time. "Irreversible" is an unsettling conundrum that guides us through the highs and lows of the human condition--it pushes buttons of morality, shows in graphic detail what others would only suggest, and brings us out the end of the tunnel exhausted, invigorated, and breathless. A stunning film, somewhat hampered by its excessive dialog.

This film is ugly, brutal, depressing, visceral, and hopeless. The first time I saw it, I was devastated. I reeled for days afterwards. But seeing it a 2nd time, I didn't care for it as much, in fact, I feel I've been had. Its impact is really felt the first time you see it, because seeing it the 2nd time, you realise a lot of things about it that aren't particularly good. Most of the dialogue is poor (most of it was improvised, and not very well), the violence of the film is purposely over the top, and Noe the director seems to delight in showing nasty stuff without really bringing a sense of art to it. He enjoys rubbing your face in the sleazy, horrific violence, but has no purpose other than saying "life is brutal". I can't deny that the film did have a great impact upon first viewing, but too often when one's sense are assaulted (like they are here), you can mistake that for great, artistic film-making.

Technically, the film is astounding. It was shot mostly in long takes, but edited together with CGI effects (the smashing of the head in the gay bar at the beginning was done digitally, as part of the rape scene). It's definitely a curiosity, but realise what you're getting into. It's really not for the squeamish. The opening scene in the gay bar is dizzying and brutal, and the rape scene is beyond brutal. Noe films the rape scene in one take, which makes it even more difficult to watch. Is the film art? No, it isn't. Simply because the film polarized audiences doesn't make it art (a common assumption by people). Noe's films (he's only complete 2 features) aren't really deep or anything, just pessimistic and brutal.

A telling episode about Noe happened a year or so ago. The IFC Theater in NYC has a feature they do occasionally. They bring in a filmmaker to introduce a film they admire. Noe showed his first film, I Stand Alone, and Pasolini's Salo. After Noe's film concluded, he talked to the audience on why he wanted to show Salo. All he talked about was the coprophilia scenes (aka the s**t eating scenes). He didn't talk about anything else that Salo had to offer (in terms of its message on fascism, sexual perversion, the cinematography, the production design). Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom is actually an excellent film. It's incredibly depressing and brutal, but has a real sense of art and is a genuinely controversial film, even to this day. Noe's films (he's made only 2) are not like this at all. Both I Stand Alone and Irreversible hit you in the face the first time you see them, but you shake it off, and Noe has nothing more to give you. This film has no resonance at all. It's just for shock value.