Beware. Do not go see this movie unprepared or unwilling to deal with what it's going to put you through. This film is demanding on all levels, physically, mentally, emotionally, visually, and sonically. Many people will want to reduce this film ? it?s homophobic, nihilistic, pornographic, exploitive trash. Resist this temptation and accept the whole, from beginning to end, and you will see / hear superior acting, impressive camera work, and the best damn sound design in any recent film. There are too many themes to tackle and too many thoughts provoked by this film for it to be ignored. Noe has crafted a startling, gut twisting film thrusting us into the 7th circle of hell and out into the light of life. Time might destroy all, but it will be a while until this film is forgotten.… Expand

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not twenty yet - two more weeks, in fact - and yet I seem to know more about cinema than most British critics. Over here, almost everyone turned their noses up at this film, saying that it was only backwards so you didn't notice its lack of narrative invention. Just thinking about that lazy-ass get-home-early statement makes me want to smash something. So does the priceless "It's little more than a snuff movie with subtititles" that some tit on BBCi came up with - and the Daily Mail (faintly fascistic British right-wing reactionary knee-jerk haterag) calling it a "sick rape movie". Respectively: stupid, stupid, and oh so very, very stupid and faintly irresponsible. For a start, the whole concept of criticising the film's narrative structure misses the point by a country light-year. Noé is not really trying to tell a story as such. This isn't a comparison, but the ethos behind Irreversible is similar to that behind 2001: A Space Oddysey - it's not about things, it is things. Put simply, Irreversible is an example of Pure Cinema, a movie that exists in and of itself, and on its own terms, one that doesn't tell a story, it shows things happening, it displays Themes. The scenes are in reverse chronological order for so many great reasons (the mighty Roger Ebert lists them in his review and puts it much better than I could), but to suggest that Noé is compensating for the crapness of his script is a horrid, horrid insult to him - even if his message (time destroys everything man doesn't destroy himself first) isn't quite as profound as all that, the tale's in the telling. Talking of which, the whole snuff-movie issue. If you 'ent heard about it yet, be warned: the movie starts with an horrific beating of a man's head to a pulpy mass of blood, bone and sinew, and halfway through there is the Rape Scene - nine minutes long, single-take (as all the scenes are), stationary, close up. You're there, basically. And yes, it's horrible. But these scenes serve a purpose. They help display the Theme. If you don't like having to watch it (and I hope I never meet someone who does) - you have eyelids, you have fingers, you have legs. Don't watch it. The great thing about the BBFC passing it uncut is that you have that choice. Of course, the Daily Mail didn't want you to have a choice - what with the whole "Sick Rape Movie" thing - but that's slightly irresponsible. Irresponsible, because showing the act of rape - in all its brutal carnality - in a movie isn't wrong in itself if it's integral to the movie (it is). Let me make this clear - Rape Isn't Nice. It's a carnival of horror, one of the most utterly horrible crimes someone can experience. The Scene makes that abundantly clear, as it should. But toning the Scene down to make it palatable for viewers? Now THAT is sick and wrong, right there. Suggesting - albeit vicariously - that rape isn't all that bad? What kind of foul degenerate would do that? None of this, you'll notice, is helpful in suggesting how good the film is. But with a film of this nature it's impossible to say. Alls I - or anyone - can do is tell you what to expect, and give you time to find some kind of body armour before seeing it. Oh, and a really big bucket. And some earplugs and eyepatches for the faint of heart. Just don't, whatever you do, read the Daily Mail.… Expand

Hmm. Where to start... GOOD POINTS It is difficult not to like the movie for it's tackling of a difficult subject. There is no doubt in my mind that I have never seen a film more gruesome. And then isn't that what it's about? This film does not apologise for it's subject matter but allows a viewer to be a fly-on-the-wall at the scene of some terrible happenings. Like the best stories, the power of the tale is in the imagination of the viewer as to other permutations rather than in the special effects of the violence itself - even though the graphic nature certainly hammers home the point in heart-stopping abruptness. Many will compare with Tarrantino movies but really this is several notches up on the frightening scale. This could happen to you. Another endearing, incisive, familiar-to-all but loosely epilogued plotline is the metaphor that the one man who really wants her is the one who would take care of her best. The man who is cavalier about the relationship is undeservingly given the prize. This irony is not lost on anyone who'd had a first love. This was not explored enough and would have given the film a much more realistic dimension. BAD POINTS Having said all that - I beleive the film in normal chronology would be dull and full of holes (no pun intended). There are many areas of the film which don't fit and some areas which are interesting plotlines but are not explored. I found this frustrating. I think that a film of this calibre should be more thoroughly edited. Who were the people in the first scene? How did he find the prostitute informer? How did she know anything when the crime was committed in solitude? Why were the two guy best freinds - they had met briefly? These holes are not something to be glossed over. Acceptance that this is art not porn is partially due to the quality of the edit. There they have failed. CONCLUSION Unless you fancy watching brtual violence for 15 minutes before drifting through another hour of padding, I suggest giving it a miss and if you like the idea of reverse chronology - rent Momento which is supremely brilliant in comparison. Momento works on every level and even the most minor detail is revealed if you watch closely enough.… Expand

Art is not always meant to be pretty, art is meant to make you think and feel, by this measure Gaspar Noe has made a masterpiece of art.

The second sickest movie ever (next to 'Itchi the Killer'). This film is for those ppl who like to watch car smashes and who frequent Rotten.com. Also serves as a reminder that is best to get a taxi home at night rather than walking alone!

Over the past couple of months I have written many (let me stress this) 'amateur' reviews on this site. Like, I am sure, a lot of people, the films I had only just watched the night before and therefore were still fresh in my mind. I watched Irreversible over a week ago and, to put it mildly, it is still garden fresh in my mind! I have been thinking about it all week and trying to decide exactly how I feel / felt about it. My answer: I dunno, still. Hopefully in writing this I will become a little clearer myself. I have copped out a little by giving it a 7 - at different times over the past few days it has been both a 10 and a 2. Anyway, I will just natter a little here about a couple of points, rather than trying to dissect it and probe too deeply. Well... firstly, I have never ever seen violence so graphically, realistically and confrontationally depicted on the screen before. It was absolutely demanding to watch. It was utterly appalling. It was completely remarkable. I am, of course, referring to those two particular and much-discussed scenes. The revenge and the rape. Technically, the revenge scene is extremely impressive filmmaking. I am so glad they included on the dvd a short featurette of the SFX in the film, otherwise I would have been convinced I was watching an actual snuff movie! Simply put, it's that real. In a Hollywood film, the camera would have jumped around, in-out, top-bottom, showing you a sped-up montage of the attack, before fading or cutting to whatever followed. Not so these French fellows. Bang - the camera stops - and you just watch! Afterwards, if you're like me, you'll reach down between your feet and pick your jaw up off the floor. I'm not going to moralise and say whether it was necessary - I just want to say it was brilliantly done, and horrendously powerful. Next, the rape scene. Words can't describe how I felt after witnessing it. I say 'witness' because that's exactly how I felt. For ten loooong minutes I ceased to be a viewer, and I became a witness! I have read that some people become physically sick watching this scene. I dismissed that, thinking they must simply be a little timid or weak about such strong scenes on film. Well, I was wrong. After watching it, I found myself sweating, shaking a little, and generally feeling unwell all over. I had to stop the film, go to the bathroom and splash water on my face. Over the years, I have seen most of the classic horror films and many many films depicting strong violence. Never have I reacted so to any one scene! It is just that hideous and cruel. Words can't describe. The worst part for me is the last couple of minutes or so, when the rapist's rage really explodes and the attack turns to battery. What he does will stay in my mind for a long time. And it's only fictional!!! Like the revenge scene Noe stops the camera dead, lowers it the floor, putting you face-to-face with animal and victim, insisting that you simply just watch! Again, think how Hollywood would have handled it... Just a couple of other points... 1) the camera work in the first half hour is particularly dizzying, almost nauseating. I didn't like it, but now grudgingly admit it was suitable for the scenes, and actually supported the film's assertions. But, boy, it was hard to watch. I had to look away many times just to alleviate the spinning of my eyes... 2) there was a scene depicting racism in the film - it was totally unnecessary and did not serve the plot nor theme of the work...please explain Mr Noe!?... 3) on a positive note, there is no doubt Noe's decision to shoot the film backwards was the right one. Imagine if it ran chronologically! Clearly, it would have turned out much different and, indubitably, much weaker... 4) even with everything I have mentioned, the second half or so of the film is a joy to watch. The camera relaxes, the lights go up, the settings become infinitely more appealing, the character emotions become more palatable, the script becomes untailored and somewhat improvisational... and all this really, really drives home the nightmare that is the first half. One must credit Noe. It is very skillfully made in many ways. The question is: did this film ever need to be made at all? Personally, I think it did. I honestly don't know if I will ever watch it again. I know I don't really want to...but I may still do so. What I do know is that it really is truly irreversible...hear me, for once you watch it, you will never ever forget it!… Expand

Unforgettable!

I'm giving it a 10 because it was so distinct, but part of the film's distinction is that numbers don't apply to it. I really don't care whether the film meant anything or if it supposedly made some point about time destroying everything. What I cared about was that it was a different kind of watch, it went about making a film in a different way, that it serves as a kind of reference point. The disorienting and violent effects made cinematic sense as the movie progressed. And it's a very well made movie. Why can't art be a slap in the face once in a while? There's plenty of Hollywood movies with sexy violence, this violence was truly horrifying. What's more honest?… Expand

Sorry to barge in again - and the Meta editors can feel free not to publish it [Ed: wouldn't dream of it, Gilbert...Keep bargin' in whenever you need to!] - but I really must react to the words of "Sharmoot". One word in particular. Pretentious. I hate it. I want it killed. It's a word that the ignorant use to shield themselves against people who use words of more than one syllable (though I hasten to add that I don't wish to imply that Sharmoot is one of these people, qua idea, just that they've used a word that makes them look like they might be). Sorry, Sharmoot, but how you can talk about Irreversible without discussing art and structure is beyond me - this isn't a Martin Lawrence film, this is a proper piece of cinematic art (and as such, I'm surprised not to see Yoon Min C.'s name anywhere yet...). To review it with just three sentences would be like saying "Yeah, it's not bad, I quite like it" about the Last Supper, or Picasso's Guernica. It's a piece of art, and I reviewed it as such, and I don't appreciate being called "pretentious" just because of it. Especially not - with respect - by someone who says, in all apparent seriousness, that it would be better if it wasn't French. You may not have written a thesis on it, but you could - and probably should - have done. And Toby B would probably agree. Oh, and by the way, if you enjoyed it, there's something wrong with you, because it's horrible. There. Just needed that said.… Expand

It's a combination between Memento and Blair Witch Project. The story is simple: vengeance. Director Gasper Noe is trying to produce the effect of going backwards. Stunningly made.

Toby and Gilbert, quit trying to dazzle us with your pretentious acumen for art and structure. Sure, the film wasn't as good as 'Memento' but it's still a very good picture. It would be much better if it wasn't French. What can you do? I enjoyed it and I'm not writing a thesis on it.

Though I really enjoyed the form of the film (very Mementoesque) I thought that the violence was at best unnecessary and at worst gratuitous. The scene in the subway went on far too long and made me feel physically sick. I was also a bit disappointed that the story didn't pull together as much as I would like it to. Parts of the film lacked meaning and were seemingly a series of random events that could have been written more neatly.… Expand

If you are a sado-msochist you will enjoy this movie. The brutal rape scene depicted in the movie was too long for my taste. The exceessive violence was ialso n poor taste. The movie was banned in a lot of countries then the decisions got reversed to be shown in art houses. A revenge murder movie along with a brutal rape scene; I have never seen such a shocking movie like this before. I was apalled at the terrible camara work, you will get dizzy as there is no focus throughout the movie.… Expand

This is just simply a horrible french remake of Momento, which came out a year before this stupid film did, and was a hundred times better than this was.

This movie demonstrates above all hate, pain, anger, and dread - love. its the agonizing love for another person (alex) that results in murder. the movie illustrates the stark difference between lust (the rape) and love (intimacy) - both equally heavy emotions in all of us. in irreversible, we are rewarded with the greatest of man's existence in what has to be the most beautiful imagery of bright, fun innocence by first accepting the ultimate truth of man's nature. a trully happy ending. … Expand

Bad. Not a Drama genre, more like horror exploitation like Last House on the Left. Sometimes less is more, Noe knows this when it comes to art so featuring 2 over the top horrendously VIOLENT scenes rather than the entire movie featuring scene after scene of cruel vicious, imagery. This will leave you with a worst impact since exploitation films try too hard to do what this one accomplishes. Why can this one accomplish its shock? Because the film is targeting an audience that are not fans of such "films."… Expand

At the film's conclusion I was just left asking myself what the point was. There was no discernible justification for the brutality that I could see. Whatever argument Noe was trying to make is lost in his complete contempt for the audience. If, as he claims, he is so influenced by Kubrick, I suggest he stop throwing his rattle out of the pram and start posing his arguments with a little more maturity and reason.… Expand

It fails to provide any moral massage. It tries hard to create a "revenge flick", but only offends and shocks the viewer. It proves that any movie can become a cult classic; they just need to be shocking, have a shaky camerawork, and be french.