User reviews

Saw this at the Melbourne International Film Festival. Whilst I didn't enjoy Noe's first film I Stand Alone, I loved Irreversible.

There is lots to like about ETV and much to dislike as well. An hour into the film and I would have given it perhaps an eight or nine but by the end of the film I was frustrated. Why? Noe just can't help himself and you get the feeling he either didn't know how to end the film or simply just wanted to be shocking for the sake of it.

Visually, I couldn't help but be impressed. Some amazing shots, lighting (strobe) and editing techniques. Noe also mixes up the story well as he did in Irreversible. You are not spoon fed the story and I love the way he told the back story of the two leads.

Plenty of people walked out at the screening after the hour and forty minute mark and I couldn't blame them. Probably not because they were shocked but just bored and frustrated. Noe pads this out and it is such a shame as overall it ruined the film as a whole.

The acting is quite wooden and doesn't ring true but that is only a minor quibble when compared to the film's bloated running time.

Hard to fault Noe for his creativity, energy and style and refusal to follow norms in terms of narrative structure etc. Still, I wish a friend or colleague had tapped him on the shoulder or given him some constructive criticism about the last half of the film.

I can only imagine how much footage Noe might add into a Directors Cut - Lord help us. Perhaps he could learn some lessons from this and streamline his storytelling and not feel the need to bludgeon the audience just for the sake of it.

In a nutshell, Gaspar Noe's often exasperating but always visionary Enter the Void follows a man on his journey from his last hours on earth, through his death and his journey into the afterlife. The first twenty minutes or so follows Oscar as he takes a hit of DMT (a very potent hallucinogen) and goes on a visually arresting, if slightly over-long trip. He then leaves his house to give his friend a stash of drugs he owes him only to be chased and shot by police when he gets there. From there, his death and afterlife mirrors the philosophies behind the Tibetan Book of the Dead which theorises (I'm sure I'm putting this very crudely) that one's soul floats around, watching the world without them until they figure out how to leave their old life behind and move on. To recommend this film to audiences is perhaps a wrong turn, as it is bound to strike most as indulgent, immoral, needlessly vulgar and uncomfortable (particularly in Oscar's tendency to watch his sister having sex whenever possible). However, with suitably forewarning, this is a film that any self-respecting cinephile should make a point of seeing, and especially on the big screen.

Noe proved with Irreversible that he was a technical genius and that his eye for original visuals knows no bounds. He also proved that he wasn't afraid to shock his audience and has quite the nasty streak running through his stories. In both visual content and shock factor, Irreversible was merely a precursor to his magnum opus Enter the Void. With an endless stream of nasty images and depressingly dead-eyed unpleasantness, it is difficult to feel anything for any of the characters, but none of this dampens the impact of Noe's probing, soaring, spectral camera as it floats in and out of lives and deaths. I don't know if it has ever been done before but the camera-as-spirit conceit is highly effective and one which puts a very interesting moral spin on the voyeurism of this film. Noe takes voyeurism to extreme, as Oscar's spirit jumps in and out of bodies in often very unusual and even shocking circumstances.

The trouble with Enter the Void is that it is difficult sometimes to know whether to laugh or be shocked. Some of the content is pretty outrageous and even quite silly. However, for every roll of the eyes, there is a gasp of astonishment in terms of the intensity of the cinematic experience. Having now seen this film twice (it premiered at JDIFF 2010 in February), I must say I was pleased to see some superfluous scenes towards the end cut out, giving the film a somewhat more streamlined effect.

Your tolerance for Noe's self-indulgence will most likely decide your level of enjoyment of this, a film I imagine will very much divide audiences, but it is at the very least a visual milestone that should be seen on as big a screen as possible (though somehow I can't see this one gracing Screen 1 in the Savoy anytime soon). A flawed piece, but one flooded with moments of genius.

One thing's for sure, you won't leave Gaspar Noé's "Enter the Void" with comparisons ready. More than likely, you won't want to think about it at all. Over two and a quarter hours, the film hijacks your consciousness like a potent hallucinogen, and leaves you feeling burnt out and brain-fried on the other end.

Is it worth the trip? Yes, with an asterisk. After all, the opportunity to see something this flagrantly original comes but once in a blue moon, yet it isn't the sort of experience many will enjoy having. "Enter the Void" begins with a strobing title sequence that explodes into a first person account of drugs and death in Tokyo; it ought to come with a seizure warning. Compounding matters, almost every scene is designed to look like one continuous shot, with the camera being placed either behind our protagonist Oscar's head, or behind his eyelids. As if the pulsating neon lights weren't enough, we're also subjected to the split-second blackouts of Oscar blinking.

Visually, "Enter the Void" is unlike anything I've ever seen, but it sure ain't perfect. The problem, bluntly, is its amorphous, front-heavy structure. The first half plays out conventionally enough, beginning with what we assume is the end, and playing flashback catch up to contextualize the subsequent events. We arrive back in the present to neatly tie the knot, only to discover that Noé isn't remotely close to finished telling his story.

Where he takes "Enter the Void" in its ethereal second half is actually pretty fascinating, conceptually. However, it feels like an entirely different film. Noé floats aimlessly back and forth across Neo-Tokyo (to support the 'one shot' aesthetic, he rarely cuts directly from one location to another, often necessitating that the camera move through walls and entire buildings). The film really wears its premise thin during this overlong stint, though the last twenty minutes mostly redeem it.

The conclusion is a little predictable given that the characters seem to be arbitrarily engrossed by the Tibetan Book of the Dead, but it works because it boils "Enter the Void" down to its visual core. Somewhere along the way, the lines of the narrative are obliterated and Noé takes a hypnotically beautiful and bizarre psychosexual detour that bridges the gap to his ending nicely.

In retrospect, it's easy to remember the curious power of its final moments and marginalize the boredom that divides it from the first, much stronger hour. The film would almost certainly benefit from a second viewing, but I'm still not entirely sure that I would ever grant it one. I seriously question how Noé and his editor could stand to watch and assemble this film all day every day, because even their 137-minute finished product is a workout for the eyes. God help us if it were released in 3D.

But for better or worse, eyestrain is part of the experience, and "Enter the Void" is more an incomparable experience than a great film. It's a shame that the vast majority of its potential audience will never even have the opportunity to see it projected, as I can only imagine home video will diminish its psychedelic impact.

The best recommendation I can make is that if, like me, you go out of your way to see distinctly different films, you'll get your money's worth with "Enter the Void." Objectively, it's hard to deny the incredible creative scope and visual audacity on display, but it's also hard not to wish the whole thing were just a wee bit more succinct.

It ain't perfect, but "Enter the Void" is original, and there's no undervaluing that. Hell, I'll try anything once.

If the following things disturb you, then you should probably avoid this film: strobe lights, drug use, shaky hand-held cameras, graphic sexuality, sperm, spinning cameras, psychedelic imagery, blood, gay sex, abortion, breastfeeding or a graphic auto wreck.

But if you're still intrigued then sit down and get ready for nearly three hours of mind-blowing imagery that you'll never forget! Although IMDb lists the Toronto Film Festival version as "only" 135 minutes, according to my watch we got the 163 minute version that was shown at Cannes. The presenter also warned us 3 times before the screening that anyone with epilepsy should leave the theatre due to the flashing lights in the film. She was quite serious about that.

I was a bit apprehensive prior to the start of this movie. I didn't "get" 2001 at all the first time I watched it and I positively hated David Lynch's ERASERHEAD. Would I enjoy ENTER THE VOID? Understand it? Walk out before the end? Yes, yes and no.

The film opens with Oscar and Linda, siblings from the United States living in Japan, looking out at Tokyo from an apartment balcony. It quickly becomes obvious that Oscar is both a drug dealer & addict while his sister works as a stripper. Their tragic family history is revealed in segments throughout the first hour. The entire film is seen from Oscar's perspective, either as: (1) First-person, shaky camera, blurry shots as Oscar walks around Tokyo, very high on drugs (2) An out-of-body experience where Oscar floats around the city observing Linda's life and the people that interact with her (3) Flashbacks to Oscar and Linda's youth, similar to (1) except that here we always see the back of Oscar's head in the shot rather than "through his eyes" (4) A surprise at the climax of the film.

Number (1) above may sound nausea-inducing to some, but there's usually interesting dialogue to distract you from the disorienting visuals and these scenes only comprise a small percentage of the total screen time. Technique number (2) could have been Oscar-worthy if it was filmed for a less controversial movie. Floating and spinning above the city of Tokyo and watching various dramas unfold from up above is absolutely incredible. You'll spend so much time watching from this perspective that it's easy to get lost in the images and forget what an incredible technical achievement you're observing.

Virtually all of the key plot elements occur within the first 90 minutes of the film. After that the film transforms into more of a psychedelic, visual experience while the story fades away. This phase of the film really tested my patience and I started to check my watch frequently but there were enough eye-popping scenes that I'm sure I'll view this a second time someday. The momentum returns during the final 10 or 15 minutes, and although this final phase is simply a logical conclusion of what had been blatantly foreshadowed earlier, it's nonetheless amusing and incredible to watch the taboo-breaking finale.

This film is very unique, disorienting and absolutely incredible & unforgettable. I can definitely understand why it's been compared to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but I found ENTER THE VOID to be more accessible and more comprehensible during my first viewing. It's too controversial and too bizarre to appeal to most people, but it will undoubtedly find its niche as one of the greatest cult classics of all-time.

I hate to give a NOE movie any less then an 8 rating. Especially a movie like this, that is so unique. But boy was it way to long to enjoy. The excitement and fascination just got kinda choked out of me while watching. Which is a shame. because there is a masterpiece in there.

And on that note a shout out to "short" art-house films like "Daft Punk's Electroma" and "The Tracy Fragments".

Enter the Void is exactly the kind of polarizing film that cinema needs right now. Too many films these days play it safe, being concerned with keeping the audience comfortable, safe and happy. Enter Gaspar Noe, who clearly has no regard either for the well-being of either the audience or his actors. We have antagonistically long (but brilliant) takes, beginning in an apartment and ending in a bar, several blocks over. We are given characters and are exposed to their darkest moments, but are never given a real reason to care for them, or to perceive them as anything but wretched. We are also shown some sexually discomforting things that we never really wanted to see on the silver screen (if you've seen it you probably know what I'm talking about). Also, the film is almost completely in first-person viewpoint, so you're constantly feeling confined to what Oscar is looking at, which are mostly psychedelic images. In effect, the feel and tone of the story are immediately off-putting for the viewer, but since you've already bought a ticket, what can you do but follow it through?

This is definitely the kind of film that can be approached in the wrong way, both with the medium that you view it through, and with your state of mind. Enter the Void is meant to be a transportive film (i.e. you living directly in the viewpoint of another, and feeling how that person feels, and perhaps even thinking how that person thinks). To technically maximize the experience, the film should really be experienced on the big screen. I'd imagine an IMAX screen to be ideal.

I also think a film like Enter the Void really needs to be approached with a separate set of goals than that of a normal film. First of all, chuck any notions of entertainment, or even enjoyment, out the window. While you're at it, remove any notions of positivity that you can think of. The only reactions that Enter the Void will draw from you are negative ones. Personally, the only emotion I consistently felt was a slight nausea, tinted with the occasional horror, or perhaps a shameful arousal, as there is excessive sexual content that is all wretched in one way or another.

The film is shot with a certain frame of mind, and sticks to it with remarkable faith. It's in the point of view of a small group of friends who are confined to the drug and clubbing scenes in Tokyo. He then films them in the most abrasive ways possible, showering the viewer in infinite neon lights, and fish-eyed close-ups, and then Noe lets his frames linger on these unsightly images for uncomfortably long. Even with his tracking shots moving from one location to another, when the viewer is normally given a moments rest, he rapidly cuts across hallways, stairs, and streets, and never gives the viewer a free moment to settle down.

Despite the film's antagonistic feel, and despite the physical and psychological discomforts that the film drew from me, I still found Enter the Void to be a worthwhile and even inspirational experience. More to the point, Enter the Void may not be a friendly experience, but this exact kind of experimentation and determined expression are just what cinema needs in order to be taken seriously as an artistic medium, when so many other directors air on the side of caution and safety. It might be a difficult ride, but just watch it once and you'll carry it with you forever.

I attended the International Premiere of "Enter the Void" at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival. Fans of director Gaspar Noé, whose film "Irreversible" created a significant following, will not be disappointed. At two and a half hours long, this film is definitely not for everyone. But I knew that going in and got exactly what I'd hoped for and more. It's trippy, dreamy, and mesmerizing and left me shaking my head in wonder many times. Startling and risky performances punctuate the dazzling visuals. The biggest surprise for me: "Enter the Void" has much more of a narrative than I was expecting. I was prepared for a cinematic acid trip, which I got, but there is an actual storyline which threads through the experimental camera-work and effects which are at the heart of the film. I highly recommend this movie but with qualifications, though. There is a great deal of drug use and some explicit sex but the film is compelling.

Gaspar Noé's big beast of a Cannes entrant showed for the first time in the UK this week in October. Gaspar Noé was there to introduce the film, which was a great kick for me, even though he didn't do a Q&A. His intro was quite funny, because he's not a grand intellectual, he's more of a sensualist. It's clear that he had a pretty dissipated youth and he talked about his experimentation with hallucinogenics and he always wondered as a kid why nobody was making movies with the images like he was seeing whilst high in them. So this is a movie I think he's wanted to make for a very long time, perhaps a couple of decades, but only now has he been able to get the freedom and funding to do it.

He said he had seen the film Lady in the Lake after taking a magic mushroom; this is a 1947 Raymond Chandler adaptation which is shot in POV (that is, the camera is like the eyes of the lead). Gaspar had also been reading about life after death experiences, or near death experiences. So he wanted to combine the hallucinations, POV shooting, and out-of-body experience material. The result is 2 hour and 43 minutes of masterpiece. It will leave the ciné-gourmand gorged and bewildered. For me it's a clear step-up, even an evolution, from his last feature film in 2002, Irréversible. The idea of having out-of-body experiences really frees up the concept of POV, Noé's not limited by the body (which can't just glide forty feet into the air, or halfway across the city). He's really freed up to shoot the fluorescent sexual labyrinth of Tokyo, which is shot only at night-time and in POV.

The story in the movie concerns a brother and sister (Oscar and Linda) who have a childhood trauma and end up moving to Tokyo in their late teens where they become involved in a heaving underworld. I think though that Tokyo is more of a metaphor in this film, I don't think he's trying to tell you anything about Tokyo the city per se, I think it's just the perfect pre-fabricated set for Noé. In the film it's a nerve centre, it's that place in life where we meet lovers, copulate, produce new life, and die. It's the mayfly (order Ephemeroptera, from the Greek for short-lived) part of the human lifecycle, which we experience in a heightened fashion through the eyes of Oscar.

There's a lot of stuff in here for you to take offence to if you want, If you have ever taken offence to a film on content grounds as opposed to intellectual grounds, you're likely to take offence here. Pornographic linkages between adult sexuality and the Oedipus complex, for me are brilliant, but will upset many filmgoers.

Those people who have decided that Noé is homophobic or misogynistic after seeing Irréversible are not going to have their minds changed by this movie at all. There seems to be a very strong link in his mind between sex and procreation. You don't have to consume the movie in a homophobic way in my opinion, but there may be a lot of upset gays after seeing this movie. Particularly as the gay character in this movie is portrayed as being on the same level as the rapist in Irréversible. There's no direct comment, but if you read between the lines, you may not like what you read.

I think the androphiles are going to love Nathaniel Brown who plays the lead teen, Oscar, in this movie, which is his first credited role on IMDb, straight as I am, even I can tell he's a heartthrob. Paz de la Huerta as Linda, his sister, is very eye candyish too. If you like to see beautiful things writhing (we're talking eye popping next level FX hallucinations here, as well as copious sex), then this is the movie for you.

I walked out of the cinema still tripping, the POV is so spectacularly well delivered that you feel almost like you're still in the movie when you come out, because the mode of perception hasn't changed.

The lasting images I am left with are from the Love hotel, a very strange pastel and fluorescent building that has holo-reflectors design on the outside and which Noé dedicates a lot of the later part of the movie to, the FX emanations are spectacular.

While the concept and technical execution of the movie is very good and interesting, it's a shame it's wasted on terrible editing and pacing. This isn't an epic tale with tons of twists and turns that needs a long time to tell it all. It's a fairly simple story, but padded out to the extreme with "sequences" between each scene.

I get it's not meant to be fast paced. But had this movie been cut down to 1h 40min (1 hour slower) it would still feel slow paced due to the simple story being told which doesn't contain too many events.

Giving this a 3 star feels too generous, as I would also regard this as one of the worst movies I have ever seen. A movie can't stand on the technical features alone, if the story and experience of watching the movie is utter crap. It was such a pain to sit through. It really could have been so much better with some better editing and pacing of it's story.

I've been meaning to watch this for a while and after plenty of research I decided to go for it. Firstly, it is not as hard to watch as I was lead to believe, provided you're not too easily offended then this will not upset or depress you in a way that other films have.

The first two parts of this movie are breath-taking, they were an absolute pleasure to watch and I loved every minute. However, as the movie went on, I found that some cinematic visuals and effects were being recycled too often and they left very long transitions between the narrative and the delivery of the remainder of the story. The cinematography is unparalleled though, and I have honestly no idea how much was this movie was filmed and created, I've never seen cinematography like it.

This movie is worth watching but unfortunately is not as good as I was hoping.

"Enter the Void" is the cinematic equivalent of an epileptic fit. Beginning with the opening credits, Argentinian director Gaspar Noé seeks to overwhelm us with frantic flickering and humming. Then we are thrown into the first-person perspective of Oscar, a drug dealer in Tokyo. But that doesn't last for long, because poor Oscar gets betrayed by a friend and ambushed by the police. He flees to the toilet of the eponymous bar "The Void", where he gets shot. From this point on, the camera represents Oscar's soul, whirling through Tokyo and waiting for some kind of redemption or resurrection.

When you watch "Enter the Void", you might be tricked into thinking it is art. But actually, it is the exact opposite: It is trash masquerading as art. Behind its flashy façade, there is not much to be said about the substance of this movie. Noé focuses on one single gimmick and does it to death until the audience is frustrated, nauseated or (in my case) bored. Don't get me wrong. Of course it can be interesting to challenge and even torment the audience of a movie. Look at Lars von Trier's work, or Nicolas Winding Refn's "Only God Forgives". Although "Only God Forgives" is deeply flawed, at least it has some kind of mystery to it, whereas "Enter the Void" is literally devoid of any meaning. Its style is one-sided and its story shockingly trivial.

There are some redeeming factors. The sex scenes feel sensual and real in a way the rest of the movie doesn't. An incestuous relationship between Oscar and his sister Linda is frequently hinted at, which gives "Enter the Void" an emotional center, albeit a very blurred one. If you just want a different or extreme experience, you might enjoy Noé's visual orgy. But if you expect a finely nuanced and truly artistic movie, don't bother with this one.

This was my first film at the Stockholm Film Festival, I don't mean to brag but Gaspar Noé got to use my umbrella when the reporters took photos of him in the rain, never going to touch that umbrella again...

First I have to say "Enter The Void" technical masterpiece. The use of the camera is creative and splendid and makes the whole movie as a roller coaster ride. The special effects are really, really special. I got hooked on these technical superiority's in "Enter The Void" that I got all thrilled down my spine. Watching it at the cinema really gave it an incredible touch. The sound was ear piercing and in some scenes it made me jump in the seat. It could go almost half and hour without any dialog, just remarkable scenes and CGI. You could think by this description it's a joyful and happy movie, but it's really not. It's dark, sea bottom dark. This movie have everything all parents wants to keep away from their children. I just get the feelings this movie would get so censored in America it would be a whole other film when showed over the ocean. But censoring this movie is fatal and would kill it. I certainly hope everyone is going to get sucked into the void just as I did.

It was a great experience, I can't deny it, but what made me put an 8/10 was the length. Sometimes Gaspar really could have made some shots shorter, there were unnatural long phases that were totally unnecessary. So that's why I give it an eight. Other then that I see no faults in this masterpiece. Go watch as soon as it shows up in a cinema close to you.

This movie starts out great with some good ideas, such as using the first person view, but after a little while, the time starts to really wear on, with long sequences which neither really serve any purpose (other than showing for 10 minutes what you see when closing your eyes after having taken drugs) nor are pretty for the eye. Also, the fact that you know much of the story right from the beginning doesn't help the boredom of this movie. So, although the original idea in itself is rather good, everything is so stretched out with uninteresting scenes, that I've really mixed fillings about this one. A unique experience which is boring, most of the time.

I'm all about a director's vision above everything. I truly believe a filmmaker should rise or fall by their own creative freedom. I usually can't stand when studios interfere, but every now and then, a film makes you understand why they sometimes do. This one, while layered with intellectual undertones, came off as pretentious in substance and selfish in pacing. It's far too long, with a number of unnecessary shots that drag out ideas we understood an hour earlier. I admired the craftsmanship and the bold filmmaking, but the editing and pacing definitely needed another set of eyes, especially for broader appeal. That said, I'm still glad I saw it. I respect that the director got to show us his vision, even if it makes for a difficult second watch. I loved the concept and the cinematography, but the story and especially the pacing, could've used a producer's touch.

So what could I add to what has been stated in the other reviews? Yes, 'Enter the Void' is definitely a trippy mindbuster, and as such anyone who requires story or frames to enjoy a film should give it a miss. Yes, the visuals are eye-popping and the ubiquitous stroboscope effects may cause severe nausea - I watched it on BR and couldn't help but thinking what an advantage home entertainment can be over cinema exposure. This is a film which may be best enjoyed alone, somewhat stoned or drunk, and very late at night. And the pause button is definitely a life-saver.

I can sympathize with those who felt tormented by the epic runtime and disparity between the first and second half of the film: the former is sort of a 'last film' of the protagonist Victor retelling his life, and therefore makes sense plot-wise, the latter is a meandering flow representing his attachment to his sister. It is a bit unfair to discard the film for this reason, though, because the dialogue between Victor and his best friend Alex in the beginning hints at what the nature and culmination of this attachment will be. The interspersed aerial shots of an increasingly CG-rendered Tokyo may actually put this transition into question - this could all very well be part of Victor's 'death trip'.

What I really liked about 'Enter the Void' is the setting, for I have lived in Tokyo myself for three years. The area where the story takes place (judging from where the CG puts the Tokyo Tower) should be Roppongi, which is an expat and night club haven; while the CG makes the place appear a bit gaudy, it is indeed populated by a disproportionate number of drop-outs and sleazy bees, and I've always wondered why there's no film about Roppongi yet - contemporary Tokyo is mostly condensed to the Yakuza backdrop of Kabukichô or the juvenile epicenter of Shibuya. So on that note, I appreciate a film about the expat world, as weird and dysfunctional as it may be.

'Enter the Void' pushes the gates of what film can visually do visually wide open, and therefore shouldn't be dismissed by any cinephile. But your viewing conditions will be crucial to whether you will love this film or hate it.

With each film, director Gaspar Noe aims to provoke, disorient, and even violate the viewer in some way; as a result, one gets the impression that he invites the vitriol of those who would slam his cinematic vision. Now, while I was compelled (if not "entertained") by the near-pornographic subjectivity of Noe's "I Stand Alone" (the tale of a sociopath butcher wandering around France with a whole lot of pent-up anger) and "Irreversible" (a backwards-unraveling tale of revenge and rape), "Enter the Void" is an agonizingly overlong tale of death and the Afterlife that mistakes neon-saturated, drug-trip informed imagery as a profound comment on a world beyond our own mortality. In its first half, "Void" manages to compel and intrigue, even if our grating and unsympathetic protagonists (a brother-and-sister duo living in Japan as a drug dealer and a stripper, respectively) do very little to make all the flashy neon seem like more than aesthetic window-dressing. At 90 minutes, "Void" is a passable (if largely empty) film, but as it crawls towards the 3-hour mark, it becomes obnoxious, intolerable, and infuriating (with Noe's pretentious excesses -- culminating in a literal orgy -- becoming the stuff of yawns rather than gasps).

If Irreversible was like a sledgehammer over the viewer's head, with it's grim, violent reality told in strobe light and spiraling camera, then Enter The Void is surely a neon bullet. More colourful, pulsating, feverish and hypnotic than the first film, Void is quite a trip. But where it raises the stakes visually, it's storytelling falls short.

This is coming from someone who doesn't 'like' Irreverible as much as admire it's power. It's not an easy film to sit through, and leaves an unshakeable feeling of horror well after it's over. I respect that, along with Noe's directorial talent in delivering it. In 'Void', I experienced a different journey, and one much less concerned with the characters floating through each scene.

Like the neon lights of Tokio, the people in this film were simply there; moving in and out of focus, part of the visual landscape. Once the colourful assault entered it's second hour, I found myself checking my watch, looking around the cinema, waiting for it to end. I didn't care about what happened to anyone hovering under each crane shot, I just wanted to straighten out, leave Tokyo, meet another human being instead of being chastised by all the lights. It was like being given a sermon on life and death by an acid freak in a nightclub; I needed a polite way of excusing myself and finding someone else to talk to. But there was no one else, only Noe.

Enter The Void is still in a league of it's own, still something wildly original in a universe of cinematic dreariness. It should be seen by anyone prepared to enter the unknown. But my god, how much more could it have been if it found it's footing on earth, as well as in the void?

I tried, guys, I promise. But after 1.5 hours of not much happening except for a gazillion flashing lights, a LOT of flying overhead, and a ton of weirdness just for the sake of being weird. I feel that after an hour and half, if you're not feelin' the movie, you ain't gonna. There could be a good idea buried somewhere in this mess but I was too bored to find it.