 |
Irreversible
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
DVD detailsActor: Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel Brand: LION'S GATE ENTERTAINMENT DVD: Region Code 1 Audio: English (Unknown); English (Subtitled); Spanish (Subtitled); English (Original Language); French (Original Language); Italian (Original Language); Spanish (Original Language) Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DVD, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen Picture Format: 2.35:1 Running Time: 97 minutes DVD Release Date: 2003-08-05 Audience Rating: Unrated Studio: Lions Gate
DVD Reviews of IrreversibleDVD Review: Pretentious and manipulative, but not without its value Summary: 3 Stars
I gotta admit, before I even viewed this film I already had my review in mind. And, wouldn't you know it, what I expected to see in this film, is exactly what I saw, and what I now intend to say are almost exactly the sam thing e as what I expected to write of this film. So maybe my view is tainted. But I don't think so. It's difficult to imagine a film that could more easily be described then 'Irreversible', a film which is the absolute height of pretension: This film is supremely arty, but not remotely complex. It sometimes displays great artistry and technical precision, is sometimes flatly asinine, and is always cheap and manipulative. And while I can't say that I really found it to be terribly disturbing, I'll admit that 'Irreversible' is about as unsettling as any film I've seen. I'm not very readily effected by violence in films, so lots of people will probably find this movie very powerful. But, just because a film effects doesn't make it great, or even good. It may just be being cheap, which is what this film is doing.
The plot is utter simplicity. Boyfriend (Marcus) and Girlfriend (Alex) go to a party, they fight, Girlfriend leaves, gets severely raped and beaten, so Boyfriend and Ex-Boyfriend go out seeking revenge, and get it. The end. Most famously, this film is shown in reverse chronological order, thus adding phony depth to this simplistic plot, along with the even more simplistic moral which is verbally stated in the film: Time destroys everything. Frankly, I've never been terribly impressed by the whole showing films out of chronological order, as it is a cheap tactic. I'm not opposed to cheap tactics in and of themselves, but I do dislike them when they are used to make some big statement, when the filmmaker thinks he's being so very smart by using them. Noe is cheap here, because the thematic justification for showing the film backwards is weak. Showing the film backwards simply allows Noe to deprive us of important information, just because it would be more powerful let us know this stuff at the end. This is different from the most famous backward movie, 'Memento' which does justify the structure by having a main character with no short term memory, thus making the reverse order the best way to put ourselves in his position. Or look at a film like 'Kill Bill', which is shown out of order to simply manipulate the audience, but this is acceptable because that is a deliberately shallow film, with no purposes other than entertainment. I'll allow you to be cheap when were just trying to have fun, but not in an art house film. That, and showing it in reverse order doesn't really add much anyway. Yes, it allows us to see just how everything had to come together for the final events to occur, but you could have seen that plenty well showing it in chronological order, You'd just have to think a little. That and he uses some incredibly lame tactics, such as when Alex talks about a book she's reading which says that the future is already written, or talks about her dream in a red tunnel. Ooh, you are a clever one Noe. (though I hear the dialogue was generally improvised, so maybe Bellucci came up with this crap on her own. I dunno.) Of course, if he had shown it in chronological order have the audience would've walked out anyway, but from boredom rather than offense. More on that later.
Stylistically, this film is a mixed bag. Sometimes the wild camera movements and extremely long takes are impressive, sometimes they are obnoxious. This is particularly notable at the beginning of the film, where the camera is flailing around with utter abandon. This is somewhat disorienting, but it's mostly just obnoxious and taken to utterly ridiculous extremes. Note the opening scene, where to characters just sit in a room, talking, while the camera wanders around at random, focusing on the light fixtures or the corner or whatever. Though I'll admit, this does work well for contrast, as the violent scenes are typical shown with very, very little camera movement, as is the second half of the film, which takes place before the tragic events shown earlier.
This films reputation is actually deserved, as far as graphic violence is concerned. The arm-breaking scene is extremely painful, and the face-pulverization with the fire extinguisher is probably the most brutal piece of violence I've ever seen in a film. And, the rape is very nasty too, and, to Noe's credity, it is shot in such a way so as to be as inexploitive as possible considering how extremely intense it is. (i.e. nudity is kept to a minimum) These scenes are effective, but much of the rest of the film is asinine. The scenes at the party and just before it are quite boring, and really don't give us all that much information on the characters. The endless dialogue between Pierre, Marcus and Alex, mostly prattling on and on about sex in some fashion or another, is spectacularly tedious. In some ways, these scenes take away from the later scenes, as Marcus proves to be an utterly loathsome prick, not worthy of any sympathy, though he is redeemed somewhat by the opening scene between him and Alex, which is probably the only scene in the second half of the movie which is truly worthwhile.
As far as I can tell, I'm virtually impossible to offend, but you can irritate me. And, just about the best way to irritate me is to *try* and be offensive. Virtually all of the
'extreme' cinema I've seen seems to be catered towards the interests of those who can watch this sorta thing. It will offend or disturb many people, but it's not made for this purpose. Personally, the graphic nature of this film just seems like it was meant to offend mainstream audiences, and, if possible, offend even the core audience. Why I get this impression from this film is difficult to pinpoint, but there's little doubt in my mind that I'm correct. That's probably my biggest beef with this movie.
The End.
More Irreversible reviews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Description of IrreversibleAlex and Marcus are a couple whose story is told over the course of a fateful evening in a series of long takes. An emotional odyssey that unspools in reverse from gut-wrenching violence to sweetly observed moments of sublime tenderness.System Requirements:Starring Albert Dupontel Monica Bellucci Vincent Cassel Directed by Noe Running time: 97 minutes Copyright Lion's Gate 2003Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: ACTION/ADVENTURE Rating: NR UPC: 658149815926 Manufacturer No: ST8159D Irreversible begins with the closing credits running backwards before the film begins (or ends) with Marcus (Vincent Cassell) and Pierre (Albert Dupontel) being escorted out of a gay S&M club by the cops, Marcus with his arm broken and Pierre in handcuffs. The "story" proceeds to unwind in a series of single-take scenes that unfold Memento-style, with each scene giving more context to what we have seen previously. Each scenario depicts actions, dialogue, incident, behavior, and circumstances that the lead characters might have wished didn't happen, ranging from extreme violence through awkward social situations to mild embarrassment. The central character (and possible dreamer of this whole what-if story) emerges as Alex (Monica Bellucci), who suffers the worst in a very hard-to-watch rape sequence in an underpass. Semi-improvised, the scenes all have attack and power as themes, with later/earlier conversational sequences that suggest life isn't all sexual assaults in the dark, showing equal cinematic imagination with the horrors. Arguably, this is not a film most would subject themselves to twice, but it is something that stays in the mind for days after viewing, sparking far more ideas and emotions than most wallow-in-nastiness pictures. --Kim Newman
|
 |