the man can't make a movie to save his life.

the only reason anyone could really have for liking this film is because they want to be different and dark, to think they have some sense of art.
no, no, no.

this film is a waste of time. it's not offensive, christ the rape scene comes off as a Skinemax film. and ooo, how taboo, a search through a gay fetish club, how incredibly offensive.

yeah, to my grandma.

this is why i hate andy warhol. he made this kind of mentally retarded eye candy possible. anyone can do anything and become famous for it. if you love this film, chances are you think natural born killers is "totally amazing". it isn't, that too is a waste of space.

truffaut is spinning in his grave.

If you want a description of the plot refer to the previous reviews.

This movie is phenomenal. It is an intricately wound spiral of unfortunate events.

The first time you watch it, you will react through your emotions. If you dare watch it again, you will have a more detatched perception of a beautiful piece of audio/visual perfection that displays what is a very apparent concept: destiny, fate, coincidence, chance happenings, or whatever you want to call them.

It is not deliberate shock value. IT is a creation by a bitter man that attempts to show us his point in a way that we choose to avoid every day when we change the channel or ignore homeless pan-handlers.

The cinematography is brilliant.

Then again, if you want a conventional drama, go somewhere else.

What is truly disturbing is the fact that people who shop for this item also shop for erotica. The movie is tame compared to these thoughts.

I admit when I watched this movie I was absolutley disturbed! It enraged me and made me feel violated. But then I went over this movie in my head for days and weeks... analyzing certain moments and effects... discussed it with others... tried to imagine alternatives... FOR WEEKS!!! and it dawned on me...
THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD F---ING MOVIE! If this movie can move someone to the point of this much emotion it has done a remarkable job. JUST LOOK AT THE OUTRAGED RESPONES IN THIS COLUMN. This movie was intended to shed light on something that some people only hear about in stories. Its not intended to be erotic! Unfortunatley some sickos might see it that way. But thats not the mission of this film. This movie peels away from all that HOLLYWOOD NONESENSE and over-endulgence and gives you the gritty f---ing truth. You can't romantisize this kind of subject matter, people.
This is a terribly realistic movie! It deals with very tragic themes and adult situations! If you watch this movie be aware! THE WARNING OF THIS MOVIE'S CONTENT IS CLEARLEY STATED ON IT'S COVER!
The special effects are astounding! THE EDITING OF THIS MOVIE WAS INTENTIONAL TO THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND. Remember the "Blair Witch Project"? Okay... well that's the idea. It's supposed to be unfiltered and candid, almost nausiating. It suits the subject matter. Notice the minimal use of editing? Every scene is filmed in one edit. Its supposed to be raw and unsettling. No frills, just pure emotions. It's an amazing film.
I admit, this isn't a movie that I would care to own or watch repeatedly... but I can't deny it's force and its amazing direction.

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.

The ironic part is; in "contradiction" to the movies' title "Irreversible" the story here is being told backwards -and it's because of such a chaotic, violent and grotesque opening sequel that finds place somewhere in the underworld somewhere on a street in some French town (an "earthly" hell would be the proper description) that makes a party where people are happy, and on drugs (!), well, suddenly that seems so normal. The rape of Monica Belluccis' character is a long and speculative(?) scene -not that rape is anything but a horrible and violent crime, but the scene... well, I don't know what to say. You would like to strangle that man -and the way the opening of the movie introduce you to his dreadful fate, let's just say that you don't feel sorry for him anymore.

The problem with the movie is the lenght of what happens before the rape, which again is the ending of the movie becoming a bit unintersting -and the couple that is supposed to be presentated as such a normal couple, well, we don't need that. The rape-scene would have been frightening anyway, and you would have felt just as sorry for the girl even if you hadn't known anything about her "ability of discussing orgasm with an old boyfriend infront of her new one". I didn't quite see the use of that. I don't think I will watch this movie again, but it's anything but a bad movie. It's just that it left me excosted (as in tired, I mean).