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
shock cinema uncompelling
The movie is in reverse chronology. Alex (Monica Bellucci) and Marcus (Vincent Cassel) are a couple. They go to a party with their friend Pierre (Albert Dupontel). Alex leaves alone and is brutally raped. Marcus and Pierre find transvestite Concha who identifies Le Tenia as the rapist. They go to a gay club to find him but they kill the wrong man.

Watching it as intended is almost a waste of time. The first half is so chaotic with extremely violent hand-held camera moves. It is almost incomprehensible. In the middle section, there is a long uncut rape scene. The last section clarifies the movie but it doesn't really have any drama. Even the reveal can't fully save this. It's an experiment that doesn't work. As for the main controversy, the rape scene is quite vicious. It's shock cinema but I don't dismiss the movie for that. My main problems are the reverse chronology and the chaotic camera moves at the beginning.
2015-01-06
A Film Of Two Halves Which Will Polarise The Audience
I came in to this film knowing all about the hype that surrounded it . " Truly stomach churning ... I had to walk out of the theater... I've never seen anything like it in my life " . It's impossible to view this film for the first time with an open mind . Interestingly enough everyone comments on the violence while there's little written on the fact the story is told in reverse chronological order . Perhaps if IRREVERSIBLE was shot in a conventional way few people would consider it so controversial and brutal and challenging ? I'm sure this would have been the case

Imagine for a moment Gasper Noe hadn't copied Christopher Nolan's style with MOMENTO ( And to be honest Nolan hadn't invented this style because " reverse editing storytelling " had been done as far back as the silent era ) and told the story in chronological order . We'd have opened with a metaphysical quote that " Time destroys everything " , ( I'll leave it to you to decide what this means if anything ) This is followed by children playing in the park , Alex reading a book , Alex going home with a pregnancy test kit , Alex finding out she's pregnant . How long would it be before the audience start to ask themselves where all this might be going ? If the story had been constructed this way it would have led to all sorts of problems , not least that there's very little going on plot wise . Adjectives like " nauseating " could also accurately describe the cheesy love triangle making up the bulk of the film . It could be argued that the reverse chronology makes it easier to empathise with Alex's rape because if we'd seen her wearing a mini-dress some people might have thought she deserved it , but I hope this isn't the case . No one deserves that

As for the rape itself would it be sacrilege to say I've seen worse ? Certainly I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a film that is far more stomach churning when it comes to rape . Unlike that film however IRREVERSIBLE does have a style and a merit to it . Especially during the opening half hour where Markus and Pierre charge in to The Rectum and the audience are shown one of the most remarkable , shocking and disorientating sequences ever seen in recent cinema . Again though you have to ask why do the cops tell Pierre that he's going down for ten years ? Surely the violence was justified to stop Markus from being raped ? Again there's a problem with the plotting because does it seem so credible that Markus and Pierre would have listened to the pimp who claims he'll find The Tapeworm for them if they give him money ? Is there a subtext to this ? Is Noe saying that revenge is more important than justice ? Your guess is as good as mine

IRREVERSIBLE is a film you'll never forget . This is down to the opening half hour and has everything to do with style rather than content . When you switch off the DVD the next day and think about it then unfortunately things start to fall apart . It's also a film that will polarise the audience . If you're not sickened by the violence you'll be nauseated by the cheesy romantic aspects of the film or vice versa . All in all the use of reverse chronology is far more of a gimmick than what it was in MEMENTO
2008-05-19
The is no changing time, and their is no justifying violent actions
I totally agree with the comment from Embalmer. This is a great movie and while disturbing, the only people that say its crap are those that do not understand it. It captures the brutality of humanity and shows us that there is no justification for violence.

***************SPOILER********************

"An eye for eye" as the old saying goes, but this movie illustrates quiet well, that there is no justifying this. The film is intentionally shown backwards, because if the rape scene was at the beginning of the film, and the brutal bashing was at the end of the film, people would have almost felt justified in seeing that. The purpose of the film is to show us that two wrongs don't make a right, especially when taken out on the wrong people. Not a total spoiler so to speak, but when you watch this film, pay particular attention at the beginning to who is getting bashed.

Top film, although I have only watched it once, and it was some time ago, I still remember it as if it were yesterday. Definitely not for the faint hearted, but in my opinion, anyone with a brain can watch this appreciate it for what it tells us about people, and how in the right or wrong situation, we do exactly what we think is necessary, even if we are not aware of the consequences. After all, once an action is done, there is no reversing it.
2006-02-02
Almost A Masterpiece….But Not Quite
Irreversible is of the violent vigilantism genre. I think to elaborate on the storyline further would spoil the film, because it is not knowing what is happening that makes the film what it is.

It is a very good film, but not quite a great one. Why not? Firstly, because the film is effectively played in reverse, you spend parts of the viewing time wondering what on earth is going on - and in a frustrating "lost" way rather than a captivated "held in suspense" way. It is not until near the end that you realise why the characters have been behaving as they have. Also, characters pop up out of nowhere - this has the effect of, at times, going beyond curiosity to create sheer frustration. (Personally, I thought Tarantino's concept of starting the movie in the middle (Reservoir Dogs) was more effective - it created two intriguing questions: what happened before and what happened after? You then got to see the beginning, followed by the end. THAT worked perfectly.) Secondly, rather like I Stand Alone (another Gaspar Noe effort) the violence is gratuitous and excessive. I am not easily shocked or prudish but was it really necessary for the graphic rape scene to last several minutes? There are other violent scenes that also go on for an unrealistically long time - the beatings dished out would, in reality, kill people long before they die in this film. What is the purpose of this? However, I am emphasising the negatives. Don't let this put you off. While frustrating at times, the film being played in reverse is what makes it so brilliantly thought-provoking and thrilling - it's a real brain teaser working it out. Overall, this is a riveting, brilliantly acted and original production. It's a worthy additional to anyone's collection. It's also a great display of how we can jump to the wrong conclusions about people by making snap judgements. The victims aren't victims, and the bad guys aren't bad at all! (Watch the film - then you'll understand.)
2005-03-24
Another stinking piece of crap for the artsy-fartsy crowd to worship. What makes those Frenchmen so enraged anyway?
This is the kind of sick, nausea--inducing garbage that the said crowd, especially European, adores and usually showers with praise, honors and prizes at every Festival where it has any influence. I see in the DVD that such thing has happened in Stockholm (can you say "Bergman?); in Toronto (which is still struggling to be recognized amongst the big in the festival circuit, so it's bound to acquiesce to every whim of the hierarchy); in Cannes (of course, any artsy piece of French trash got it made there) and also in the U.S.; in....where else, in Sundance, the place in that country where all the toxic crap from every place in the world comes to rest under the compliant eyes of the local artsy-fartsy aristocracy.

Irreversible is so revolting in its extreme, unmitigated violence, it may even induce you vomit if you are the least sensitive or if it takes you by surprise. At the least it will leave you a feeling of profound sadness and emptiness--so, if you still insist in seeing it don't say I didn't warn you. Now, if something good I got to say about clunkers like Little Miss Sunshine and Being John Malkovich is that, bad as they are, they have no serious effect in your mood, as they are inoffensive precisely because of their shallowness and meaningless. But you can't say the same about this atrocity. To give you the goods: there's a 10 min. scene where a man brutally rapes a woman and then smashes her head against the concrete floor, leaving it just a bloody mess. But, as the title says, this is a movie going backward, so the revenge exacted by the victim's boyfriend comes first, almost at the beginning, and it's also as horrible: he--or one of his friends--smashes the offender's mug with a fire extinguisher, over and over again, until leaving nothing of it but a deformed piece of butchered meat. After seeing all this you may be tempted to ask: for what; for what artistic, ethic, aesthetic, philosophical purpose? Well, for none whatsoever, just for the sake of showing extreme violence. For the sake of appealing to the most savage, basic, primal, human instincts. And that is the kind of cinema crap that leaves the artsy-fartsy crowd brimming with excitement, jumping in joy on their Gucci shoes and wetting their designer pants: pure art! pure art!.

The real issue here is RAGE. Forget about sex--which is never an issue when it comes to rape anyway--neither friendship, even if the boyfriend's comrades offer their help in locating the offender. It isn't about love either, as they guy is more interested in revenge than in following the loved one to the hospital, to see it she makes it, acting as if the real wound would have been to his manly pride. In fact the tragedy seems to have blown his fuse rather than devastated him--as generally occurs--bringing out a long repressed and devastating rage in him so we may even say the rape is a detonating event rather than a motive or justification. And I'm even more inclined to this idea as when watching the first scenes it seemed to me that violence comes naturally to this man--the character or the actor, who cares--without the need for a provocation; so rape or not rape you can easily picture him acting the maniacal way he does. Anyway the turkey is about maniacal rage and nothing else so don't get fooled by the sexy DVD cover. It happened to me and now I regret it.

I didn't feel like reading reviews but I caught glimpse of one where something interesting is said: that the victim doesn't do anything to avoid the rape, which makes you wonder what was really the filmmakers' intentions (a question: would this turkey have been such a hit in France had the woman defended herself and injured, or killed, her attacker? Just wondering.) See, she could have kicked the man in the groin, she could have even told him she had AIDS, which in real life has proved in some cases to be a deterrent. But you wouldn't see that here. The martyred (female) victim is way too much appealing to the misogynist French and such a crucial part of their most cherished traditions way back to Jean d'Arc--or even before--to the German occupation of 1940-45, to let the opportunity pass. (also, Bellucci had still a career to be made as the new European bombshell and being raped and beaten to death on screen would go much farther in winning the hearts of the French than, say, reacting to the attack and making instead of the rapist's manly parts a bloody mess. SVP, Thelma/Louise ne sont pas bienvenues ici). Still, why such monstrous rage? I have one possible answer for that.

The French used to be big 200 years ago when Napoleon went to make a complimentary visit to the Mameluks of North Africa (which little Nicholas Sarkozy feels now the urge to visit again, to commemorate the 200th anniversary). But ever since WWII they are just a petite nation lost in the shuffle, which makes them very angry, and even more when their intellectual class has all but disappeared, not letting behind but some cheap purveyors of junk philosophies and worshipers of the established elites. We are far from from a Sartre, a Camus, a Malraux et al. Until the 60s they could still claim an intellectual hegemony—specially over the hated yanks—presenting themselves as the leaders of civilized behavior & diplomacy, the alternative in moral leadership with their tier-mondiste positions in world politics. But all that's gone now. With such a big decline in every possible field, what's left to them but the rage...? It is in this kind of moral and intellectual emptiness where cinematographic vermin like this one appear and dwell, like scorpions and snakes in a desert. Anyway, stay away from this turd and, even more, from anyone praising it. --100/10.
2011-04-16
Unwatchable
I live in brazil and i do not speak English very well, but i'll try to show you my point of view the best way i can. This movie is probably the worst thing that i ever saw in my life. Terrible actors, stupid story (even worst screenplay) and the director must be blind, because i can imagine someone watching this trash and at the same time liking it. Actually, this movie (if the producers wanted that kind of result) did not need a director, but just a monkey to carry the camera across the set while the actors and the retarded cinematographer walk on his side pointing the light to make us think that they really knew what they were doing. If The passion of the Christ didn't exist, this movie will become the worst movie of the history. In the future, when i learn to speak English correctly, i will give you a hundred more reasons why. José Vicente.
2005-01-27
watchable
Topic and acting are both good. However, one cannot help the feeling that the director tried to be too clever. After a while the continuously shifting camera angles loose their excitement and with this any artistic message that there might have been. Telling the story back to front is a nice idea but compared to Tarrantino's Pulp Fiction this approach doesn't work anywhere near as well. Belucci and Cassel are excellent but Dupontel fails to convince; maybe because his character seems inconsistent. I'm not sure what all the fuss about violence and the rape is about. Yes it is ugly, but then how many people are maimed and killed in the average Rambo movie. I suppose it's too close to real life. In the end the whole thing didn't quite work for me.
2005-02-06
You do not need to see this!
You leave the cinema feeling diminished.

You realize you were tricked by the advertising into seeing a film that revels in pain: The anguish of a sodomy-rape victim, the hurt of the denizens of an S&M hell-club.

This is one of those vicious little movies that use shock effect to make up for the writer/director's lack of talent. Noe realized he did not have the creativity to make a film about time and vengeance which was fresh, novel and interesting - so he resorted to violence - always a sure seller.

It is a puerile film school-level effort with a supposedly philosophical statement about time. The workings of time are utterly obvious to anyone who breathes - we do not need this 'artistic' schlock to show us the self-evident.

Nasty, pretentious, time wasting garbage.

Don't...
2004-02-14
this is the most disturbing film i've ever seen
i am the least conservative person you'll ever meet, but if you aren't horrified by this film, you're probably a sociopath. i watched the whole thing, but only in pieces. there's no need for this violence. this isn't blowing things up. from the crushing of a guy's skull with a fire extinguisher - with many more hits than is necessary to make a guy's face meat like in the movie - to the rape scene...this is disgusting.

we're still to early in our understanding of the brain, but this is real enough to make one have post traumatic shock syndrome. i don't want to say it should be banned, for i am not for censorship. but i think people who make things like this should be shunned.

again, i am a very liberal person. this was the most disgusting "film" i've ever seen.
2009-02-17
Exploitative piece of human excrement
Horrible movie. Hated it. You have to be very good at repressing your emotions (outrage, disgust, horror, etc) to "enjoy" a movie such as this useless, exploitative piece of human excrement. Nihilistic, cynical, sadistic, it depicts prolonged sexual violence, perverse sexual behavior, and brutal physical violence. It is "artfully" told in reverse chronological order, which only serves to hide the banality of the story. This French movie is typical of the Hollywood-envying hypocritical style of European films, who pretend to condemn Hollywood, while exploiting it. This film has no redeeming value whatsoever, except perhaps as a warning to women how NOT to dress when walking home alone from a party.
2005-05-17
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.
×