Irreversible

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.


Soul shattering   May 20, 2004
Jeffrey Leach (Omaha, NE USA)
133 out of 145 found this review helpful

After witnessing the nightmare of Gaspar Noe's "I Stand Alone," a movie that left me in open-mouthed awe for days afterwards, I just knew I had to see "Irreversible." I am not a big foreign film aficionado, not by a long shot, but Noe's films are worth watching simply because they are deeply disturbing jaunts into the darkest recesses of the human psyche. He's not above showing life as it really is, and he does it in ways that make you laugh at the cleverness of the presentation even as you cringe in disgust at the subject matter. In other words, his pictures are right up my alley. I always love to watch cinema that challenges the viewer on some level, something rare indeed in an age of the American special effects laden summer blockbusters. That doesn't necessarily mean I always like these types of films; oftentimes I don't when the fine line between challenging and pretentiousness is crossed, but Noe's stuff is great because it is premium grade weirdness. "Irreversible" will remind many viewers of the American film "Memento," except Noe's film is darker, oh so much darker, than that movie.

"Irreversible" flows backwards, with the closing credits opening the film and each scene shown from the end towards the beginning. Right from the start, you know you're going to see something different. Boy, are you ever! A sex club with fleeting sounds and images of pornographic behaviors, a sickening scene of a human head being bashed in with a fire extinguisher, and an arrest quickly start you wondering about what it all means. As the film progresses (regresses?), we learn why one man killed another in that seedy bar. Alex (Monica Bellucci), a rather carefree soul, was brutally raped and beaten by a thuggish French pimp in a subway tunnel. Her boyfriend Marcus (Vincent Cassel) promptly had an emotional meltdown when he discovered what happened to his lovely woman. Full of seething rage, he goes on a rampage through the city looking for the man who maimed Alex. Along for the ride is Pierre (Albert Dupontel), Alex's former boyfriend who desperately attempts to rein in Marcus's reckless quest for vengeance.

Surprises abound in "Irreversible," surprises that will leave you thinking about the film long after it ends. I was a little amazed I figured out how the film concludes (begins, actually) long before I got there. You just knew there had to be some big, explosive revelation that would give Alex's victimization even more pathos. Well, there is and it's quite shocking. In fact, it would have worked almost as well had the film been shown in chronological order. Since Noe chose to reverse the sequence of the scenes, he not only retains the film's shock value but also imbues it with a frequently recurring sense of "what if." If only Marcus had paid more attention to his wife at that party. If only Alex had listened to Pierre and not gone out alone in a dangerous neighborhood. If only, if only, if only. You get the idea. This sense of identification gives the movie its edge. We've all done the same thing, asked the same questions, after a personal tragedy. I know I have.

What shocks even more are the things Gaspar Noe can get away with showing in a French film. The French have little problem with overt pornography, morally repugnant violence, and lengthy discussions on the most intimate details of sexual relationships. Sure, American films are violent and sometimes crass in their discussions of sex, but not like the French films I have seen lately. I can't imagine any mainstream film made here that would show a rape sequence that runs for nearly ten minutes, or the weird goings on in a club. If you have a serious problem with any of these issues, stay far, FAR away from "Irreversible." For that matter, stay just as far away from Noe's "I Stand Alone," a movie that shows in gruesome detail a murder/suicide. I will say that the filmmaker does not in anyway attempt to glorify the vicious acts of cruelty and barbarism he depicts in his movies. That doesn't mean it makes these incidents any easier to watch, however.

"Irreversible" is a shocker on many levels, a film not suited to a majority of the movie going public. It's not the sort of movie you would take a date to, or watch with members of your family unless you're a member of the Manson family. It should go without saying that Noe's picture is not suitable for young children. I recommend watching "Irreversible" alone so that it becomes a personal experience. I don't know what Gaspar Noe will come out with next, or if he'll ever make another film again, but I want to see it whatever it ends up being. If you haven't seen "I Stand Alone" before watching this one, make sure you see it soon. Fans of this type of cinema should also check out "Baise-Moi," another French film filled with even greater amounts of nihilism and despair than this one.


Irreversibly Gratifying   May 2, 2003
Meher Kourouyan (Los Angeles, CA)
28 out of 38 found this review helpful

I have not seen a film this thoroughly gratifying for a long time. Every time I pay to see a film I feel as though I've been stripped of my money. Before this film, the last film that I enjoyed as much was Amelie, which is a completely different film, and I haven't seen anything satisfying since.

Irreversible takes the same chronologically reverse format as over-hyped and under performing "Memento", a movie that I did not enjoy because there was no reason for it to go in reverse. It was all a gimmick to cover up the fact that the story was weak. But Irreversible makes it work. In the first 10 minutes of this film about 10 people left the theater, which I consider a thinning of the herd. This film is definitely not for the squeamish. I pride myself for not being shocked by anything in films, and this film really got my attention.

In the opening scene of the film, which is the climax, the camera is all hand-held and seem seems never to cut, or move away from the action. It is amazingly violent and disturbing, but not gratuitously. Gaspar Noe, the director, does not shy away from showing the underground world of "The Rectum" in its true form. Watching the opening moments I felt as though this was my incarnation of hell. The scene ends with Marcus and Pierre (Vincent Cassel and Albert Dupontel) violently murder a man with a fire extinguisher. Usually in movies the camera pans away and we hear what's going on, but in this case, the camera catches everything.

As the movie progresses back in time to the momentous rape of Alex (the angelic Monica Bellucci), the camera sits on the floor and captures the entire rape in one take, one angle, without ever cutting away. It is by far the most honest and chilling rape scene I have ever seen. Alex (Monica) is a supremely seductive, powerful and independent woman, who is dually vulnerable and delicate. Her emotional transformation in this moment, the fear and apprehension of loss of life is apparent in Monica's facial expressions and her non-acting style of acting.

The camera seems to be a witness of Alex's bargaining with the rapist pimp, Le Tenia (Jo Prestia), to her beating, and the long-lasting rape. By the end of that scene, I felt as though I was rapped. The dialogue is as true as I can imagine it to be in such a situation, and throughout the entire film.

Towards the end of the film, or the chronological beginning, we see Alex and her boyfriend Marcus (Vincent) waking up in their apartment and having a very casual and intimate conversation, without rushing through it. And without saying anything about the plot of the film, it reveals so much about the two characters and their relationship together.

The film ends with a bird's eye view of Alex reading a book at a park with children playing around her. The camera spins in circles and gives a feeling of such tranquility, a major contrast from the start of the film.

This film stayed with me for an entire week and I dreamt about it that night. I recommend this film thoroughly to anyone who can stomach honesty in violence. There isn't a trace of Hollywood in this film and I think that says it all.


Very Disturbing   March 15, 2004
Shaun W. Malone (Caldwell, ID United States)
24 out of 26 found this review helpful

This movie was very difficult to watch. I don't think that I have ever seen a more violent opening seen or quite as disturbing rape scene. The movie is well laid out and at the end you almost have contradictory feelings because you see the couple when everything is ok, but at the same time you know what is going to happen later that night. The reason I didn't give this movie 5 stars is because of the camera work at the very beginning of the movie. I think that the varying angles were used to help illustrate the insanity of the situation, but to me it seemed a little over done. I also was confused by the very end of the movie and have heard people say that it could be a dream, but I am not sure I saw it that way.

Either way very moving, very disturbing movie.

If you do decide to watch it, be warned that there is extreme violence and some not so main stream sexual acts.


Yawn ...   November 22, 2004
Monkey Deathcar (Philadelphia, PA United States)
24 out of 42 found this review helpful

Irreversible tells the story of Alex, the victim of a brutal rape and beating in a Paris underpass, and Alex's lover Marcus and ex-lover/friend Pierre, [...] in search of "the tapeworm"; the pimp who assaulted her. The story is told in reverse, beginning with Pierre and Marcus being led from the club by police, and working back through the assault that set these events in motion and finally to Marcus and Alex earlier that day, unaware of what's about to transpire.

I'll start with the "marquee" scene in the film (the rape/assault), since this is what most people who rent or buy "Irreversible" are going to want to see. I can admit that images of rape can be very erotic on film, and I think that the amount of fantasy-rape porno online and on film pretty much proves that this is a turn-on for a fair number of men (and some women).

But this scene did nothing for me. There is virtually no nudity. It's brutal, but not particularly graphic. I didn't find it any more shocking than the rape in "Straw Dogs" (an infinitely better film) and it's less stomach-churning than similar scenes in "I Spit on Your Grave," "The Accused," "Leaving Las Vegas," and a lot of other movies.

The big problem is that the scene isn't designed to titillate (especially since it ends with a brutal beating that couldn't excite any viewer) OR deal with the subject of rape in an intelligent way. In fact, since the story is told backwards we first meet Alex a few moments before the assault, so you only sympathize with her character in the way you'd sympathize with anyone who's a victim of a horrible crime. The backwards style of the movie works against "Irreversible," because the viewer doesn't get to know or identify with Alex at all until she's already beaten to a pulp.

At this point, I figured that we'd move back in time to get to know Alex, Marcus and Pierre; to identify with their characters and appreciate the horrible events (prior to the rape, we see Pierre beat the supposed assailant to death with a fire extinguisher in a scene that's IMO much harder to take that the rape). But that never really comes. We learn that Marcus likes to do coke and fool around with other women at parties while his girlfriend is nearby. We learn that Pierre is a wimp who likes to ask his ex-girlfriend sexually explicit questions about their former love life in front of her current boyfriend. We learn that Alex is hot, and that she's the type of girl who would date a jerk like Marcus. These are characters I'm supposed to care about?

Throughout it all we get a swirling, panoramic camera that only settles down like a voyeur to focus on images of rape, murder or gratuitous nudity. I'm sure the director used this technique to mimic the turning passage of time or something, but personally I found it more disorienting and unpleasant to watch than innovative. I'll give him points for running the end credits at the beginning of the movie, though; that was clever.

Overall, my biggest impression at the end of the movie is, "that's it?" Almost nothing happens. If you played "Irreversible" back-to-front, it would go like this: Alex sits in a park looking pretty. Alex and Marcus frollic naked and talk about things we don't care about. Alex, Marcus and Pierre talk about sex on a train. They go to a party. Alex is assaulted. Marcus and Pierre track the assailant down (I'm not sure if he actually was the assailant; neither do I care) and beat him to death. They're arrested. The end.

The director dresses the film up in swirling camera work and tells the story back-to-front to pawn it off as art-house fare that makes some point about the "irreversible" damage that some trauma (the rape and murder) inflicts on its characters. But ultimately, the movie is "about" watching a guy get beat to death by a fire extinguisher, and watching a hot girl get anally raped by a sleazeball. That's it.

I'm not going to get on my high horse and say this movie is "immoral" or "disgusting." I've seen films like "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Salo: 100 Days of Sodom," so this kind of subject matter doesn't turn me off. But "Irreversible" makes the unpardonable sin of being boring, and at least the aforementioned movies have the integrity to admit they're exploitation and then deliver the goods. Not only is "Irreversible" not shocking, but it also thinks you're stupid enough to think it's deep.

Don't waste your time.