Write descriptive essay about Irreversible movie 2002, write an essay of at least 500 words on Irreversible, 5 paragraph essay on Irreversible, definition essay, descriptive essay, dichotomy essay.
Irreversible
Year:
2002
Country:
France
Genre:
Crime, Drama, Thriller, Mystery
IMDB rating:
7.4
Director:
Gaspar Noé
Vincent Cassel as Marcus (as Cassel)
Le Quellec as Inspecteur
Fesche as Chauffeur Taxi
Nato as Commissaire
Jara-Millo as Concha (as Jaramillo)
Stéphane Drouot as Stéphane (as Drouot)
Michel Gondoin as Mick (as Gondouin)
Jean-Louis Costes as Fistman (as Costes)
Hellal as Layde
Mourad Khima as Mourad (as Khima)
Jo Prestia as Le Tenia (as Prestia)
Philippe Nahon as L'homme (as Nahon)
Albert Dupontel as Pierre (as Dupontel)
Monica Bellucci as Alex (as Bellucci)
Storyline: Events over the course of one traumatic night in Paris unfold in reverse-chronological order as the beautiful Alex is brutally raped and beaten by a stranger in the underpass. Her boyfriend and ex-lover take matters into their own hands by hiring two criminals to help them find the rapist so that they can exact revenge. A simultaneously beautiful and terrible examination of the destructive nature of cause and effect, and how time destroys everything. Written by Denny Gibbons
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x856 px 6705 Mb h264 10030 Kbps mkv Download
Reviews
IRREVERSIBLE (2002) *1/2
I can't agree with all the gushing praise being heaped on this film. I had been reading and hearing about it for months and just yesterday I came upon the R2 Tartan DVD in my local video store and, naturally, I rented it immediately.

While I was not surprised by all the strobing effects, I didn't expect this 'artistic flourish' (yeah, right!) to go on for an overbearing and nauseating 35 minutes! I can understand that the director wanted to emphasize that the character of Marcus (Vincent Cassel) had been unceremoniously dragged into hitherto unexplored facets of his character as well as into a maelstrom of depravity peopled with seedy low-lifes and crafty opportunists. But did he really have to hammer this out for us for over half-an-hour? Sure, it's a uniquely bold touch to start the film in this way but rather than induce the viewer into compulsively watching what is happening on the screen, however horrible and stomach-churning it might be, it ends up feeling grossly self-indulgent, irritatingly obtuse and condescending to boot. The only saving grace I could see in utilizing this effect for so long was that it enabled me to look away impatiently from the screen over to my watch and not concern myself with missing out on any of the strenuous activities a bunch of horny faggots and transsexuals feel the need to indulge themselves in daily to kill their time or make a living.

This may be one of the reasons why I didn't even notice that the wrong guy had gotten his face smashed in after all. Now that scene would, in the words of one patron of 'The Rectum', score an 'awesome' in a cinematic bravura contest but again, while not actually coming off as gratuitous, it just seems to go on forever. I can see that this sequence was mandatory and it was a clever touch to have the intellectual Pierre (Albert Dupontel) giving the beating rather than the more macho and aggravated Marcus. But surely some of the other patrons of the club could have tried to intervene or something rather than simply looking on and acting like a bunch of apathetic zombies.

Which brings us to the other much-discussed sequence of the film: the grueling and interminable rape scene in the tunnel. I have watched STRAW DOGS (1971), THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (1978) all fairly recently. Obviously, as it has set itself out to be from the start, IRREVERSIBLE's rape scene is the most realistic of them all but I think that filming it in such a detached way robs us of really living the experience through the main character. Not that we really need to do so; everyone knows that rape is despicable and we don't need to watch it in close up on the screen to come to that conclusion. But, to me, the rape sequence in STRAW DOGS is all the more effective – both cinematic ally and emotionally – since we do not just watch a re-enactment of a rape by two actors (however well-rendered, spontaneous or realistic that may have been) but we also enter inside the victim's mind as she is going through that horrible ordeal. She screams and cries just as the character of Alex (Monica Bellucci) does in IRREVERSIBLE, but STRAW DOGS' Amy (Susan George), having been an unwitting accomplice in the rape herself (by letting her ex-boyfriend into the house while her husband was away), tries to survive through it all (and in a way purge herself of her own guilt) by thinking of better times with her husband (with whom, as in IRREVERSIBLE, she had also had an argument). To tell you the truth, I found Noe's choice of filming the scene in one static shot rather uninvolving, so much so that I didn't even notice that, as has been mentioned by other members here, there was an eyewitness lurking about on the scene of the crime!

Luckily, the film improved a lot for me after this point. Not only because the camera assumed a more conventional view-point but also because, finally, the director decided to infuse his film with some much-needed humanity: the camaraderie between Alex, Marcus and Pierre (even if their long drawn-out conversations on what turns them on and what doesn't is at times laughably pretentious and, alas, typical of much of French cinema these days) brings out the individual characteristics of each one of them; the palpable and tangible love which exists between Alex and Marcus (aided immeasurably by having a real-life married couple playing these roles) is shown via an explicit if not particularly graphic scene of love-making (although I couldn't help feeling somewhat like an unwarranted voyeur intruding on an intimate moment which should have been shared exclusively by the couple); Alex's eventual pregnancy, while predictable, has all the more resonance now that we know how the events will turn out and her leisurely moments reading in the garden as she is surrounded by kids tries to end the film on a note of transcendence, of innocence that will soon be lost, possibly never to be regained.

Actually, apart from all the legitimate significance that can be gleaned from it, I am grateful that Noe elected to cut his film backwards because at least it gets done with the less digestible aspects of the film first. However, coming as they do so early in the film, it runs the risk of losing its hold on the audience since there is not much else to attract their jaded attentions (expect the afore-mentioned sex scene). It's like having a three-hour epic with all the battle sequences crammed into the first half-hour. Of course, one may argue that had he cut the film chronologically, the reverse would be true. But then the viewer would have by now come to care about the fate of its protagonists and he would have been sucked into following the subsequent vertiginous descent into Marcus' darkest recesses. As it stands, the film feels, on the most basic of levels, like a series of disjointed vignettes one less interesting than the other.

One thing that didn't quite ring true for me in the film was the party sequence. Why on earth should Marcus be fooling around with other (by necessity, less attractive) girls and doing drugs and indulging in vacuous conversations with his miserable teacher friend when he has a gorgeous girlfriend like Alex a few feet away from him (thus giving her enough reason to become annoyed by his behavior and therefore decide to leave the party and go home ahead of them)? And you all know what happens after that! I don't know – maybe it's because I've never done drugs (although I've been known for imbibing excessive amounts of alcohol in my time!) and never been much of a party animal myself but, to me, in those scenes the character of Marcus seems to be playing the prick for its own sake rather than from any inherent character motivation!

The saddest aspects of IRREVERSIBLE for me are two-fold: it's a shame that Monica Bellucci, blessed (or perhaps cursed) as she is by incredibly good looks and an impossibly perfect body, can only realize her acting abilities by degrading herself on camera playing such 'significant' roles (but then, who knows what bland parts she'll be offered to play when her burgeoning Hollywood career eventually takes flight?); also, I kind of suspect that with each new film he'll be offering us, Gaspar Noe will be at pains to top his latest work in the sensation stakes and I for one don't care to make that journey with him.

While some of you may applaud a film which (or a film-maker who) does not refrain from making you feel uncomfortable by unflinchingly showing us life as it most truly is in all its brutal detail, I think it's just a case of artistic superficiality. Art is the celebration of the creative forces of an artist, be he a writer, a painter, a musician or a film director. What's so creative or artistic about pointing a camera at something and just let it roll for minutes on end? Even more incomprehensible is why anyone would want to waste thirty minutes of celluloid (not to mention our time) by deliberately obfuscating what we ought to be looking at in the first place with a distressingly distracting strobing effect? Beats me.

This somewhat regrettable tendency to show life as it is, with all the usual cinematic decorousness thrown out, actually started with the Italian neo-realist movement of the 40s but eventually crystallized itself with the arrival of the French 'Nouvelle Vague' in the late 50s. Rejecting as they did the overly theatrical style of such respected directors as Marcel Carne', Rene' Clair, Rene' Clement and Claude Autant-Lara, these new 'enfants terribles' took to the streets of Paris and filmed their stories 'off-the-cuff' but they still imbued them with overt references to the Hollywood peers which came before them, in such a way as to make their films intelligent but no less enjoyable for all that. Take Jean-Luc Godard, for example. He may have been the first to reject the trappings of the 'Nouvelle Vague' and deliberately confine himself to filming pseudo-intellectual political diatribes for the best part of a decade (and, in doing so, perhaps unwittingly, laying the seeds for the horrendous Dogme'95 movement) but, in his prime, he could film an ostensible parody of international film co-productions, LE MEPRIS aka CONTEMPT (1963) based on Alberto Moravia's novel no less, and turn it into one of the most profound and scathing studies of disintegrating marital relationships in film history. Even so, Leonard Maltin – not the most patient film critic when it comes to art-house bollocks – calls this very same film 'perversely funny' and 'highly amusing'! It comes as no surprise that Gaspar Noe has no sense of humor whatsoever and his film, although admittedly required viewing for all true cineastes, joins the ranks of other 'films maudits' I've watched out of curiosity but which I don't intend to ever do so again, like Pier Paolo Pasolini's SALO' O LE 120 GIORNATE DI SODOMA (1975), Ruggero Deodato's CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1979) and Kinji Fukasaku's BATTLE ROYALE (2000). And good riddance, too!

Yesterday, a few hours after watching IRREVERSIBLE, I decided to try out another 'sacred cow' of a film I've been wanting to see for some time – Alexandro Jodorowsky's THE HOLY MOUNTAIN (1973)! Big mistake! And then one of my favorite actors Gregory Peck goes on and dies out on me! One of the worst days of my life, I tell you! I guess I should've seen THE BRAVADOS (1958) instead, a good revenge Western in which Peck's wife is raped and murdered and he goes after the four men responsible, only to find out after killing the very last one, that they were innocent after all!! Sounds familiar?
2004-12-02
One of the most shocking and impressive cinematic achievements in film history
To put it as simply as possible - Irreversible is about a tragedy. What Noe managed to achieve here is to shake up the viewer with various methods, that add a layer of immersion above everything else. The acting is beyond superb - as most of the dialog is actually improvised. The cinematography is simply mind blowing - unlike ANYTHING I have ever seen before. The way the director chose to sequence the scenes is one of the most original and dare I say necessary executions in recent memory. The pulsating soundtrack and the incredible disorienting camera work are perfect and are integrated into the film in a professional manner that doesn't make it cheesy or unneeded - the contrary is true. It is not at all an easy watch - but if you are up for it, you will enjoy one of the most delicate and gut wrenching creations of our time.

9.5/10 - nearly flawless.
2017-02-09
Not much substance
Irreversible is pretty infamous by now because of its content, it would always be one of the first to come up whenever I read about disturbing films on the internet, and three words: fire, extinguisher, and rape, are always mentioned in the same sentence as the film's title.

It pains me to say it, but beyond the controversial and shocking scenes, this film really doesn't have much to offer. The film is not in chronological order, it goes backwards, but I'm not sure this was such a good idea. A similar thing was done in "Memento". In that film it was done for two main reasons: to make us see it from the main character's perspective, and also to emphasise the twists and turns in the plot. Irreversible does neither of these things. The reason for it is to make us see how their lives were ruined, before these things actually happen to them, but I think it's there more for style reasons and to make the film stand out.

Once you strip away the style, there is very little substance to this film. The all-over-the-place camera along with the strange noise in the background during the "Rectum" scene, was genuinely unsettling. Add in one of the most brutally violent attacks I've seen in a film and you have a disturbing scene. The rape scene is also disturbing, but overall this is a very thin idea stretched out over 90 minutes. This can be seen in the final 40 or so minutes. Once the rape scene is over, that seems to be almost all the film has to offer, and the rest of the film is just a lot of improvised acting from the actors, which must have been fun to make, but is not terribly exciting or compelling.

Every scene in this film goes on way too long, the rape scene is too long, and every single scene after it also goes on too long. One of the few things I did like was the end scene, but that couldn't redeem the whole film.

The whole concept behind the film is that this girl is raped, and her boyfriend takes revenge on the attacker. This isn't enough to make a 90 minute film out of, and while it's well acted by everyone, it amounts to little more than its controversial scenes overall.
2005-10-16
At times brilliant and at times sophomoric but always depressing
The film and its plot have been described and extolled by other readers. Most of what is said is true, but I would attach a different view to many of the things this director does.

The director is obviously trying to be innovative, and in many ways what he does works. Probably his best innovation (well, it has been done before, but not often)is to tell the story backwards. This has the effect of making you think about the things that led up to the rather horrible ending (which you see in the beginning). If he had told it in the usual way you would have been shocked by the ending and walked out wondering why it is such a downer but not considered the causes. There are other effects, such as moving the camera around in a very jerky way. This does give a disorienting and confused effect which is probably what the director wanted, but it also makes you feel a bit sea sick and there are times it is very difficult to follow what is happening on the screen, which is not what the director wanted.

All and all, the theme of the movie is a depressing one. It is on a par with "life sucks and then you die" or more like "life may be good for a bit but eventually the evil comes out in all of us and it destroys us." Some people like depressing things and if you are one of those people, then I recommend this movie. I am not one of those people and I sincerely disagree with this view of life, so I didn't like it.
2005-02-05
The Darkest Hour
Film Review: "Irreversible" (2002) - Taking on a bizarre approach of mixing conceptions of "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999) and "Memento" (2000) to make this picture work for itself in casting real-life married couple Monica Bellucci & Vincent Cassel to portray two Parisian middle class people, Alex & Marcus, going out for party at their friend's. Director Gaspar Noé, frequent guest in Cannes Film Festival's competition since his first feature "I Stand Alone" (1998), polarizes the 55th edition of Cannes with his also originally written film "Irreversible".

The editorial intervenes scene by scene in reverse story-telling, exposing one night in Paris for the couple Alex & Marcus, who got separated over a minor dispute to fatal consequences for both characters, which all-time controversial representation of urban underpath rape of the character of Alex, who has not been prepared for a predator of the Parisian underworld with a free path of finishing his business of leaving behind the empty shell of Alex.

Director Gaspar Noé gives his main characters no chance of conciliation, seeking no balance nor preaches any mercy that film becomes downhill and out experience, which nevertheless shares some over-stylish camera motions by Cinematographer Benoît Debie and honest acting by the at times over-enthusiastic couple Bellucci & Cassel, who hardly stand a chance to come full circle with their characters of an otherwise weak-on-suspense script that lives from the sensation-mongering violent explosions at the beginning plus the previously mentioned storyline's climatic scene, which at today's standards needed metal objects pushed into human flesh, blood on snow white skin and a limping rapist to come close to even with the audience.

What is left of a so-called scandal film of the year 2002 is another acting couple after Richard Burton & Elizabeth Taylor in "Who's Afraid of Virgina Wolf" (1966), Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman in "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999) and then the not-as-close to a classic considered "Irreversibel", where only a "Memento" (2000) copycat gimmick of telling the story backwards saves the picture from a total fall-out due to cliché-striving screenplay of expected relationship quarrels following into one false move of carelessness, which should have been just taking the cab for woman in an evening dress to get home at night.

© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)
2017-11-14
Will The Beauty Save The World?
The plot of the film is simple: a woman (Monica Belucci) is brutally raped by a stranger; and her boyfriend (Vincent Cassel) and ex-boyfriend (Albert Dupontel) who are best friends set out for revenge. What is crucial, the story is told backward.

The most obvious success for this film is the directing by Noe. He has crafted a nightmare that is both original and horrifying. If the inferno exists somewhere, one of its circles definitely looks like the "The Rectum" bar, and the other - like the underpass where Alex (Monica Belucci) was brutally sodomized and beaten for long nine minutes that seemed as an eternity. The pulsing score that accompanies the film contains, for the first sixty minutes, a constant 27-hertz tone specifically designed by Noé to cause nausea in the audience. It felt like someone was constantly drilling the holes in my head. The director creates the scenes of such pain and violence that makes "Natural Born Killers" look and feel like a puppet show. One of these is a scene where a man gets his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher with the camera never turned away and the sound is amplified.

The movie shocks you, and then it goes and shocks you even more when there is no violence on the screen. I broke in tears during the bedroom scene - so much love, tenderness and desire Monica and Vincent had for each other. They did not know what was ahead; I did.

In the end, one cannot help questioning the very fragile, illusory nature of happiness, how easy it is to destroy everything. Is it a blessing or curse not to know what lies ahead and not be able to change the future?

Dostoevsky said almost hundred and fifty years ago that the Beauty will save the world. I don't know. Not this world. Not during my time.

'Irreversible' is a shocking anti-violence film; one has to decide whether he or she wants to see it. I personally think it is a must see but I would not be surprised if a lot of viewers refuse. It took me a very long time to see it. I am glad I did.
2005-02-09
What a Disappointment!
Strip away the fancy / annoying spinning camera and the reverse-time telling, and "Irreversible" is a mediocre revenge movie with a predictable twist ending. Problem with the "twist" is, when the story is told "backwards," you know what it is half-way through.

That's the problem with "Irreversible" altogether: Somebody forgot the fundamentals of storytelling. Unlike "Memento," which is well-crafted to deliver its climax and a twist whether viewed "forward" or "backward," "Irreversible" simply puts everything in reverse order.

The climax – the "fire extinguisher" scene with all the raw energy and emotional release – happens in the first minutes. The set-up – the very long and brutal rape – takes place in the very middle.

Watching "backwards," we wonder just what will be revealed to make the story any clearer; it never happens. In forward time, "Irreversible" has little to redeem its overly graphic violence and largely unlikable characters.

That is probably the best reason for reverse-chronology and dizzying camera. Without either, "Irreversible" would jut be another annoying French flick trying to be more than it is. With both, it's just more of the same.
2006-08-18
Not for everyone.
Irresponsible?

Maybe...

It's quite possible that director Gaspar Noe' may have been attempting to make a point, not just about blind rage over one horrific act of violence leading to another act of violence, but that bigoted attitudes against homosexuals and trans-gendered persons may also play a role when one is out for revenge, seemingly, at all cost.

Unfortunately, there isn't ONE LGTB character in this film that is portrayed in a positive light. All are involved in scenes of graphic sexual escapades, most of which take place at a "gay sex club", the name of which seems to have been chosen for the HIGHEST SHOCK VALUE possible!

The number of gay slurs uttered by numerous characters is appalling (during the infamous scene in "the tunnel" where Monica Bellucci's "Alex" is attacked, even her attacker had to use the word "F-ggot" or "F-g" multiple times!).

At the end of the film I (as a gay man) was left feeling insulted and confused. This is obviously not a movie that you watch for "entertainment". The director appears to be trying to teach his audience some kind of lesson. For me, that lesson seems to have gotten lost in translation...
2015-05-29
Worst movie Ever
How can anyone sit through a rape of a woman? How can anyone find that entertaining? I thought this was going to be a horror movie, but instead found a HORRIBLE movie. It made me angry to watch....I stopped watching mid-way through the rape scene, just hoping someone would have come to her rescue. Very poor taste in a movie and I would have been number 201 to walk out on this piece of trash. It started out bad, all the spinning and rotating and then all the f#& this and f*#k that!...I'm not against bad language in any movie, but it was non-stop. I can't believe that I rented this movie and even more I can't believe that IMDb users give this movie a 7.3 rating. I will gladly rate it a 1, only because there is no rating for P.O.S. movie.
2010-08-05
The most homophobic film in every way - barely a spoiler - just gay bashing
There is a hatred of gay men in virtually every frame of this film. Some of it is on the top layer, but the majority of it lies just underneath. It's clearly written by a heterosexual bully, and deals with outdated film stereotypes, but creates new ones, disgusting ones. The movie plot is also full of sh*t regarding gay men, and none of it is even close to reality. Not only would the centerpiece of the film (a rape) hinge on a machismo guy trading one hooker for our whore heroine, we are supposed to believe he is primarily a gay anal rapist. This makes the entire plot point simply a lazy excuse to start the film off (end up) in a gay S&M sex club to make it as shocking as possible.

I have been to every type of sex club there is, first hand, and although I do not partake in S&M I believe everyone has a right to their sexual freedom as long as no one gets hurt. There is a constant barrage of false imagery as they go through this club, gay men do not even remotely ever behave in this way, regarding real violence, although sex club behavior and general piggishness would still be shocking to most people. It's not the sex or the dress, it's the brazen witnessing of real true violence and no one even appearing the least bit phased by it, and even masturbating to it. Stereotypes of the "gay man bottom" running around screaming for anyone to please put their fist or anything into their "rectum" in exchange for information is an insult. Yes Virginia, gay S&M clubs exist, but readers please understand, this is not simply an exaggerated look - this is complete and utter nonsense meant only to shock you and to use the mock-depravity of gay male sodomy to disgust you down to the last thought. Rape wasn't enough. Bisexual psychopaths who anal rape both sexes equally? It's barely evident in real crime.

And to add the final insult - the director himself was afraid of being accused of being homophobic - he is - he returned to the S&M club to film HIMSELF as the masturbating man witnessing one of the most violent deaths (discussion point) filmed.

It's lighting is too dark to often see important information, and the opening soundtrack is deliberately culled from vibration sounds meant to trigger nausea and vertigo in the viewer. So he arrogantly wanted to insure people would walk out of the theater, so he basically "drugs" the audience into getting sick with the soundtrack, Between that and himself masturbating in his own film, it isn't worth it.

Full disclosure: I am a film fan of controversial films and I seek them out to see when the intersection of story, cinematography, and shock make for a truly adrenaline experience. Salo, A Serbian Film, Audition - these are disturbing stories you watch at your own risk. Skip this homophobic garbage.
2013-10-11
Write descriptive essay about Irreversible movie 2002, Irreversible movie essay, literary essay Irreversible, Irreversible essay writing, narrative essay, Irreversible 500 word essay, argumentative essay Irreversible.
×