Irreversible is just gratuitous, I didn't appreciate the 'art' I thought it was [LIFTED], to put it simply, and very disturbing, but that's the point is it, well no I don't see much point in watching that sort of film, the camerawork made me feel sick too, meh.

That said, it was better than Watchmen...

hi all,
are we just dealing with cinema releases or can we do the latest releases to retail,you know dvd/blu ray??
myself being a big blu ray supporter and having a hi def home cinema (sound and vision) i certainly wouldnt mind giving reviews regarding the story,picture and sound quality and such.
i had actually considered it last night whilst watching transporter 3,are we pushing for it on the board index??
cheers spunky

You can review any film you like in here, new or old, and then we can dissagree with your opinion.

Irreversible is just gratuitous, I didn't appreciate the 'art' I thought it was [LIFTED], to put it simply, and very disturbing, but that's the point is it, well no I don't see much point in watching that sort of film, [/quote] I can fully appreciate your reaction but at no point did I think the film "gratuitous" - it does not over-play or shy away from the brutal reality of the events it portrays (rather than the Hollywood gore porn). It shows things as they are - and how things look - and it's that honesty - that sucker-punch straight to the face, throat & gut - that leave you breathless, stunned and in awe that I wholly commend.


Whereas I see the camera work's inducement of nausea, the disorientating backward story telling, Cassel's performance and Bangalter's awesome soundtrack all as one integral part of the tragic symphony -making Irreversible one of cinema's boldest, (and for me greatest) moments.

I watch & enjoy all sorts, but only certain films will stick with me forever. Irreversible is one of them.

Yeah it kinda does... It was like Requiem for a Dream, how a 15 year old would write a drama if he'd had 10 years of film-school experience, just layer on the tragic and depraving situations until you spark a reaction in the audience. I prefer my art to be subtle and enjoyable, even when, or maybe especially, when dealing with harrowing situations - the man walking away in the background in the tunnel, just gratuitous and depressing and way too easy.

We obviously differ on the matter - I just can not relate to what you mean by subtlety - do you mean the use of less-direct narration? God forbid you mean the use of cryptic (read: vague, distracting, whimsical) symbolism. For me such "artistic" gestures are just another means to gloss over & dramatise, where you see "obviousness" in film making - I see honesty - because life is obvious - and films (of this nature) need not, nay should not, mask that fact.

I guess I just don't need a blue rose and a midget to make the message more pointent - it's not cleverer - it just makes it muddier - and I see no other method of delivery that could infuriate yet resonate in an equal measure as much as the scene you raise does. Oh how I have seen people scream and rant at that guy for hours afterwards. But I hate to say that is how things are - people do walk away from things. And that is what Irreversible shows you. The actions of said figure have a resonance as much as all of our actions have a consequence.

In my opinion, if you don't like the content - it's because you shouldn't (I certainly don't) - but if you don't like the delivery, then all I read there is that you would rather be blinkered. And that, from what I've gauged, is what Eon wanted to challenge by pointing out that there is little we can do save always think about our actions otherwise we have to deal with the repercussions from which there is no hiding.

The obviousness is that I watch films to be entertained, that's what a film is for, I didn't find it entertaining, you obviously did and you like being made to feel depressed and powerless? It's a stange thing to 'want' to see in a film, that's what I can't understand. And you can shove your symbolism up your arse :p

Tango & Cash rocks. 8)

review please

definately a beer and pizza movie.
Drink beer; eat pizza; disengage brain enjoy film!

There are many definitions for entertainment and not all of them suggest it should be entirely painless: .
So you didn't find it "entertaining" - again I can appreciate that, but to use your opinion and taste in films as the yard stick against which all other films are judged is a bit conceited isn't it? And you're wrong, I don't like being made to feel depressed and powerless (emotions that did not factor whilst watching Irreversible) but I do like to be challenged now and again - I can barely imagine anything worse than having everything as I want it.

But I've just had you shove it up yours Chris - cross polination's not cool.

I don't believe that cinema is purely about entertainment at all. It's art. But that's a whole other discussion.

Art is only for entertainment because it's optional, you must want to make it and you must want to consume it? Is that not obvious.

In this instance I'm just saying that it's not my cup of tea, and I've explained my opinion without saying that yours is invalid. Both mine and your opinions are valid, as they refer to subjective taste, it's interesting that the film elicited different emotions in you as it did in me.

Just because something is optional, doesn't mean it has to be for entertainment - does it?

Art can be a means of expression by the artist(s), a way of communicating feelings. The emotional response elicited is not always entertaining. At least, not in my experience. I sometimes watch movies and listen to music for more than "something to do", or just to be entertained. Perhaps that's just me. No biggie.

Just as a side note, Hollywood is considering Roger Rabbit 2

I've just watched all the Blade films, pretty good. Well the first 2 were, wasn't a fan of the second, a bit too much CGI. 1 and 2 definitely worth a looksy.