Irreversible (**1/2)
review by Jon
Waterman
The infuriated Marcus takes Pierre along on a journey through
the streets to exact revenge. Earlier that night, while the
two men were inside laughing and dancing and making out with
various women at a large house party, Marcus’ girlfriend
Alex was being raped and brutally beaten. Pierre, Alex’s
ex, tries to keep Marcus calm, but to no avail. He won’t
stop until someone pays for what they did. Now they just have
to find the guy.
I basically told you the entire plot just now, but that’s
okay, because you’ll learn it within the first scene.
This film moves backwards. Y goes to Z, then X goes to Y, and
W goes to X, etc. until you end at A to B. I know what you’re
thinking. Yes, you’ve seen it before. But this movie
moves more fluidly than “Memento.” There’s
nothing to really figure out. There are no clues or puzzles
to solve while watching. Also, you don’t have to deal
with potentially distracting flashbacks. Yet, no matter how
you slice it, it’s a gimmick.
Technically the film looks very good. I’ll get into
that more a tiny bit later. (See what I’m doing there?
Messing with the structure. Ah, you don’t care.) However,
the film could have worked just as well chronologically or
the way it was presented. There are certain little snippets
of dialogue that are inserted that make sense later on in the
film, but there are as many snippets that make sense in reference
to what you’ve already watched. Either way, the tactic
verges on hokey, but somehow narrowly escapes that fate. The
reason it breaks away from being corny is because it’s
contrasted so well with the harsher segments. On the one hand,
you have three people carrying on a very mundane conversation
about sex or about a party or whatever, and on the other you
have an exhaustingly long sequence where all you see is horrendous
activity. It’s balanced out in the long run.
The violence is quite vivid. Your eyes won’t be shielded
from anything. The rape sequence isn’t even the worst
of it. In fact, the sheer length, while unbearable, is simply
too long. Near the start of the film, there’s a much
bloodier, more gruesome scene to watch. It’s shorter
and more concise and thus lingers that much more.
The style of the film is probably its most annoying and most
endearing quality (if anything in the film can be considered
endearing). Auteur director Gaspar Noé (also writer,
producer, editor and sometimes cinematographer – along
with Benoît Debie) thoroughly planned out the whirlwind
visuals. The camera is almost always moving, sweeping the terrain
in one-winged angel-like maneuvers. It rests on the important
stuff when need be, but otherwise, it floats around seemingly
aimlessly. For some it could be disorienting, but the camera
movements remarkably don’t blur the images you see. It’s
steady and deliberate and executed very well with the help
of seamless edits.
The gimmick tries to counteract the weaknesses, or is used
as an excuse for the lack of a more complex storyline. This
movie is not for the faint of heart and those with weak stomachs.
Those predisposed to motion sickness might also want to stay
away. Those looking for pure originality or a stunningly good
movie will probably be disappointed.
respond to jon@filmbrats.com
|