Change Your Image
Gensyn
Reviews
Snowtown (2011)
Incessant swearing and animal cruelty don't a good drama make.
Wildly over-hyped, overestimated Aussie flick about their local serial murderer celebrity.
This attempt at gritty and crude reality has been seen time and time again before, with usually better results. The thing drags and drags on and on, with interminable scenes including a bunch of people who are never introduced in the first place (who'll only vanish later, without further explanations) bantering and chit chatting back and forth for what seems forever.
From time to time, though, the perpetrator of this celluloid waste does try to wake the spectator with some violent scenes, the most gruesome of which involving (real) animal cruelty. Excuse me? Dude (yes I'm talking to you, beginner Kurzel), the happy days of Cannibal Holocaust and all are over, hello? To have real animal cruelty in a movie today is totally inexcusable. If the producers of this crap didn't have the doughs necessary to plod forward with special effects, they should have abstained. Period. Notwithstanding the cynics, you don't take lives for the sake of entertainment. And this thing is not even entertaining.
Lastly, if you want to understand ANY of this mess, you'd better have a solid grasp on the John Bunting events before you watch this. Otherwise, it'll be nameless characters galore which won't make any sense to you.
Pass on it, though. And hope Kurzel isn't allowed to approach a camera ever again.
Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
A grand tale of despair, apocalypse, and death.
First, I don't know how to effectively rate this, so I choose the middle ground, but that's irrelevant. I'm not sure it's a movie that's made to be rated in any normal way.
No use rehashing what the plot is once more, suffice to say it's very efficient and was, at the time, pretty innovative. But the plot device would have been moot were it not for the stunning craftsmanship of Ruggero Deodato and co. It's an extremely well done production, and I have never seen anything like it before or since. One of the main protagonist of the movie is often overlooked: the Amazon jungle. It's probably one of the most terrifying place ever rendered in any movie. Cannibal Holocaust wouldn't be half the movie it is were it not for the permanent sense of foreboding one feels amidst the oppressive scenery. It's easy to have empathy, at least on that level, with the film crew. Deodato makes the viewer feel like he's lost in the middle of nowhere, in an incredibly dangerous environment where everything can happen, at any time. By ricochet, this sense of terrible isolation takes its toll on Alan Yates and friends, and is also part of why they snap and produce mayhem on the tribes they later encounter.
The last reel of the crew's footage is probably the most intense thing I've seen on a screen. It is apocalyptic, disorienting, sordid and heartbreaking. In more than one way indeed, Cannibal Holocaust is a sad, despairing movie. And even though, by that time, the viewer is supposed to despise the film crew, it is quite disturbing to see anyone end up that way. The Pirkanen scene is a moment of such savagery, of such disregard for a human being that it stays with you for a long, long time. From his castration to his complete dismembering, it's a vision that will make anyone suffer, one of the most haunting scenes in any film.
I have to add that these scenes, and most of the rest of the movie, wouldn't pack such a punch if it were not for the incredible score by Riz Ortolani, which is the soul of the movie, and the reason why some parts are so hard to watch.
On the touchy subject of the abominable animal killings: perhaps everything and its contrary have already been said about those, but there are some precisions to add.
The "they were killed for food" line of defense doesn't hold close scrutiny, I'm afraid. The shot baby pig wasn't eaten afterward, but left for dead as is, for one. Secondly, the infamous monkey scene had to be shot twice, so they in effect killed two animals. I highly doubt the friendly tribesmen stuffed their face twice with monkey meat because of the movie's needs, their love of monkey brains notwithstanding. Same as, I'm not quite convinced that tribes people do have goofy fun with turtle guts prior to eating it, when they hunt one. When I saw Pirkanen enjoying his fun and playing with the turtle's severed head (still gasping for air) in front of the camera, I somehow doubt it made his food better.
For those who have the Grindhouse DVD edition, it's said in a crawling text introducing the feature that this matter has been "a subject of regret for everyone involved, Ruggero Deodato included". Allow me to highly doubt that, to say the least. As recently as 2003, when the one-hour documentary on the feature was shot, none of the crew involved seemed to regret anything in that area, to put it mildly. Barbareschi (who is the one who shoots the pig, among others) goes even so far as saying he simply didn't give a s*** at the time, and still thinks today that the scenes and the movie "called for it" (i.e. the animal butchering). So please. Enough hypocrisy already. It seems to me that the crawl text regarding the so-called regret of the makers was put there by Grindhouse only to justify what is otherwise a good idea, i.e. offering an "animal-cruelty free" version of the film on the DVD. I don't believe for one second that it is a sincere comment, though. The only ones apparently genuinely disturbed by this aspect of the movie are Carl Yorke and Robert Kerman ("it was like they had pierced heaven," as he put it, in reference to the muskrat's cries of pain and anguish as it is being slowly and painfully sliced open). Not Deodato, not Barbareschi, despite everything they might tentatively say to the contrary. As it stands, I think the film suffers much from this. It's the movie's major drawback, as has been said repeatedly before.
No matter what the "message" is, annihilating lives for entertainment's sake is vulgar, cowardly, and inelegant. Case closed.
All that being said, I think the point is not to like or hate this movie. Its qualities are obvious, as are its few but very nasty drawbacks. The point being, it's an experience unlike anything else in cinema. Whether one wants to have that experience or not should really be an informed decision. The first time I saw it, 25 years ago, I wasn't in the least aware of what was ahead, and at the time I deeply regretted having seen this. Watching it again recently has put, of course, a perspective on the way I see the film, if only because I've read so many things about it since I first saw it, but even so, many of the old sensations came back as the film unfolded when I watched it again.
This is a very, very potent piece of film-making. This is something you can't ever unsee, and it's very unlikely you'll be able to forget some of the imagery once you've seen it, so proceed with caution and don't presume of your resistance to awfulness. This one has shocked many a gore hound...
I... comme Icare (1979)
This is absolutely great cinema
Highly memorable, intelligent and suspenseful movie from one of French movies' true geniuses, the formidably able Henri Verneuil. The plot is an exact parallel of the JFK assassination, and takes place in a non-descript, fictional country. The film, visually as well as plot-wise, is razor-sharp. Shot with meticulous precision, it follows Henry Volnay, the Procuror who takes on himself to unravel the coup. In many ways, it's a very disturbing movie, not the least for the cold and analytical precision of its comment on a so-called modern state's inner workings. The atmosphere and characters are all utterly believable, and Verneuil left nothing to chance in its tight plotting. On another level, this relatively little-known movie just had a 15 years head-start on Oliver Stone, who was acclaimed for the "JFK" movie, a inferior film in many areas, the least of which not being credibility...
It's a masterpiece, any cinema lover should see it, preferably in its original French version with subs.
Irréversible (2002)
A tremendous shock
Gosh... Where to start?
First of all, there probably will be spoilers in this comment (I don't dare call it a review), so if you haven't seen the movie and intend to, you should probably look away. Or maybe not, if your intent is to prepare yourself to watch it.
I came to Irreversible rather by chance, hearsay, and curiosity, rather than being attracted to either its plot, actors, or director in the first place. I hadn't (still haven't) seen Gaspar Noe's previous effort, I Stand Alone, so I was totally estranged from his universe. Not anymore. The clichéd comments I'd heard about Irreversible depicted it rather like a gratuitous, vulgar French nouvelle-nouvelle vague provocation a la Baise-Moi than anything else (mostly from people that either hadn't seen it, or left the theatre early in the movie/stopped the DVD - which can be understandable in itself. More about that later...). These comments are so far from the truth it's laughable, and do miss the point completely.
If you're reading this, then you've probably read most of the other comments so I won't offer any synopsis, you know what it's about in terms of storyline. However, mark my words, NOTHING can prepare you for this emotional devastation that is Irreversible. It's the very first time that a movie really doesn't present itself in terms of "I like it", "I don't like it", or any expected logical conclusion we usually draw when the curtain closes. I still don't know if I like it or not. The point is moot, anyway, at least as far as I'm concerned. Irreversible shares only celluloid, the physical format, with so-called "traditional" movies. The comparison ends here. Other than that, it's a primal assault on the senses and emotions, unlike any other I've ever experienced. One word of advice: if you really want to try to get to the core of this work, do watch it until the very end. It's much easier said than done, however. Yes, everything you've heard is totally true. It is literally NOT, I repeat, NOT for the faint of heart. And I don't mean queasy stomachs by that, though those sensitive in that area should also think thrice before deciding to watch this.
The first quarter of the movie is an absolute abomination. Forget Cannibal Holocaust, forget the pseudo-snuff movies (Faces of Death comes to mind), this is ten times more intolerable. The first twenty minutes are something that will probably stay in your mind for life. It is that barbaric and gruesome. I freely admit, I could watch only part of the murder that takes place in the club. I had to avert, even close, my eyes. And I had to lower the sound, completely, until the monstrous deed was done. This sequence is formidably potent, and has the power to make you feel literally close to panic. For the record, I've seen it all too, in terms of horror movies and the like, so I've seen much more than my fair share of gore ;-) Or at least I thought so. The "problem" here is that it goes far beyond just gore on film. I don't think I can clearly depict here in mere words the why and how, the reason, regarding why it's so brutal, so raw a shock, but the fact is, it's a lightning bolt right into your cortex. And I felt physically ill watching this, not just queasy or nauseous. Sweating, with accelerating heartbeat, tingling extremities, the works. So there you have it.
Frankly speaking, the infamous rape scene coming some fifteen minutes after that is not nearly as traumatizing. Sure, it's atrocious, hard, viciously brutal. But honestly, what do you expect from a rape? Of course it's gonna be one the most despicable act that you'll see, no surprise here. I digress, but what did people expect of that scene before the scandals and controversy began? It's for sure what a rape should be: violently repulsive and merciless. However, except for a few seconds at the scene's end, it's nowhere near as primitive and graphically indescribable as the first -and only- murder in the film.
All this being said, this work is THE most vibrant anti-violence statement I've ever seen put on film. There is no embellishment of any kind here, no stylish editing, smart cuts, slow motion... It shows violence -and all of it- only as it should be seen: repulsive to the extreme, blindly and uselessly destructive, utterly unable to resolve anything, and as the most terrifying dead-end that exists; indeed, having totally irreversible results. There is no coming back from such acts, no redemption either. Man just has to live with his obsession of being stronger than his neighbour, whatever it takes. It's also, let's admit it, a very cruel movie, in terms of its resolution -yes, the beginning of the movie as such, as the character of Pierre destroys the wrong man, and the rape's perp is not only alive and kicking, but apparently rejoicing at the sight of another act of terrifying violence. That, by the way, puts an end once and for all to all the ridiculous comments I've heard made that the movie was an apology for revenge. This is in total opposition with what really happens in this story, and on the screen. It's up there for everyone to see. The film is much too clever to try to deliver a lesson however, but it's obvious to anyone who watched this closely that Noe does not condone violence of any kind, but condemns it without appeal. He just gives a cold, harsh look at whatever is sleeping -or not- inside ALL of us. Personally speaking, I can understand where Pierre comes from when he snaps, I can relate, even if I don't give him excuses. All honest people will. I did have, like so many other people, somebody close to me that was mugged/robbed rather brutally (though thankfully not raped) and the first, FIRST thing that came to mind was "where are the b***ards?". If you get my drift... Unfortunately, it's a human reflex. Whether we're solid enough not to give in to it, is what's decisive... If I had the possibility, in my own experience, to find the aggressors, I still don't know to this day what I could have done. Probably I could have killed someone out of sheer rage, anger, and blind fury. So there is no clear cut, prefabricated opinion to have about the madness and rage these people dive in. This is part of the unease we feel as we watch... The characters are likeable, but blend. Anyone could be in their place. That is the power of this film, to rub where it hurts, to tell it like it is, that anybody tomorrow, despite all our certainties, could end up in exactly that same situation as the average folks depicted in Irreversible. And the movie shows it as real as it gets, not only the violence of course, but in terms of witnessing plain, normal people who are going straight to hell because of uncontrollable circumstances. All it takes is nine minutes, and dark, nasty chance. All of this is not preachy, by the way, just the embryo of reflections I have from seeing this film a few days ago. I'm only beginning to feel good -no, strike that, NORMAL again just now. So this scribing is probably not very structured or coherent. ;-) There's much to be said about the arresting camera work, the infernal soundtrack (the synthesizer drone during the club scene evokes a demented and anguished monochord lament), and mostly the quality of the acting -suffice to say that all the actors in the movie do a superb job of capturing truth.
In the end, Irreversible is a most unique, if sobering, experience. A weird one, a disturbing one, even and especially a tremendously traumatizing one, but ultimately a rewarding one, for there is good and beauty in the film too. It's quite a paradoxal feeling though, and starkly ironic; this beauty is all the more dramatic because as we are witness to it, we do know at the very same time it's about to be irremediably lost, crushed, destroyed soon. That's also why it's obvious the movie could only be edited as it is, telling the story backwards, comparisons with Memento be damned. So finally, whether or not you'll be willing to pay quite a lot in terms of emotional cost to experience the power of this film is all the question.
Good luck...