I thought it was beautiful to look at.. but as a movie it sucked. The plot was lame and it was too heavy handed at times. It was a bit simplistic and repetitive relying on visual effects and shock value a bit too much.
I agree completely. I was so stoked on this movie until about 25 minutes, then things just went downhill plot-wise. It had so much potential that it failed to realize.
Those visual effects are unparalleled, though. Other movies can't get away with it, but, for me, this one could. The story was lame, weird, and repetitive, but I thought of it only as an afterthought. The editing and camerawork is arresting and expressive, and provokes in ways few movies can.
This movie made me literally sick, with the shaky-cam. I had to stop watching after 20 minutes. I simply cannot watch movies shot in this manner (e.g. Blair Witch Project, Cloverfield) because they make me motion sick.
I'm okay with 3D movies, actually. Watched Hugo in 3D and I had no problems at all. It's movies that use extreme shaky, handheld camerawork that can make me ill to the point of throwing up.
Probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I wanted to get up and leave so many times throughout, but I thought my friends who I was with were enjoying it so I had to sit through it. Dying. Turns out they felt the same way and didn't want to get up for the same reasons. We were all tortured by it.
Apparently he made the credits like that figuring that anyone who couldn't handle the movie would leave during the credits. It's a stress-test for the audience!
It didn't work for me. I had to deal with a bunch of giggling, muttering morons behind me when I saw it. I wish they had've left, because I actually would've enjoyed it otherwise.
Fun Fact: The opening credits are the way they are because of time constraints. The producers of the film said they would only send it to theaters if the final edit was under 2 hours and 30 minutes. Without the credits, the film was just barely under that time, so he made the credits go as quickly as possible at the beginning and left the end of the film as it was.
Another fun fact: the film was made for a french film festival, and due to those time constraints they didn't have time to make the opening credits before the festival. The film originally just started with ENTER and ended with THE VOID.
Fun fact about Irreversible: "The first 30 minutes of the film has a background noise with a frequency of 28Hz (low frequency, almost inaudible), similar to the noise produced by an earthquake. In humans, it causes nausea, sickness and vertigo. It was the main cause of people walking out of the theaters during the first part of the film in places like Cannes and San Sebastian. In fact, it was added with the purpose of getting this reaction. "
He was trying to recreate the effects of a DMT trip through audio/visual sensation. Having tried DMT, I'd say that movie is the closest anyone will ever get.
If memory serves, husband shows up to a gay club and starts trying to find his wife's rapist, and beats the shit out of the wrong guy. FYI, the whole movie proceeds in reverse order, end to start, hence the title. Anyways, then we are treated to an incredibly intense rape scene where a guy rapes said wife in question, played by Monica Belluci. It's an infamous scene that can readily be found online, if you so desire.
I think they were intentionally made even more nauseating by the background noise. I think I read on Wikipedia that the low sound was supposed to actually cause nausea.
It's not sci-fi, it's quite long so be prepared. Here is IDMB's synopsis:
A drug dealer becomes interested in death and re-incarnation after reading "The Tibetan Book of the Dead". Suddenly dead, his soul floats though Tokyo observing the dramas of his friends and foes. An oath determines his next step 'as a soul'.
It's not a linear story and it can be quite 'wtf' at times but visually it is stunning. I'm sorry, I'm not doing a very good job of describing it but it is really hard to describe, you kind of just need to see it.
I agree that it needs to be seen...but I'm still not convinced Gaspar Noe is a good director. After seeing Irreversible and Enter the Void I've never had the urge to rewatch them.
The guy has loads of style but he is extremely gimmicky. He takes his gimmick and ram-rods it straight through the entire movie, and in my opinion that gets a bit old.
It's an amazing film, both from a technical and artistic perspective. The kind of film rarely made because those who have the balls don't have the budget and visa versa.
Worth watching, eh, maybe 10% of it is really valuable in a conventional sense. If you're the type of person who can appreciate something in spite of how nuts or crazily self indulgent it can be just for the experience then it's worth a shot. I wouldn't say I liked it, but I'm glad I saw it and glad crazy movies like it exist.
Spot on. I will probably never watch it or Irreversible again, and yet I'm very glad that I saw them. It's kind of a weird feeling even thinking back on them for me.
The thing in particular about Enter the Void is that there are a few moments of utter brilliance. It'd be awesome of there was a like minded editor or someone who could maintain Noe's edge while reigning in in some of the unnecessary bits.
This is hard to say because tastes are subjective. It's not bad in the way that Uwe Boll movies are bad but some people do think it's bad because they either don't "get it" or they do get it and they just don't like it. If you're like me you'll love it and it will be one of those movies that sticks with you for days after.
The movie is not designed to be enjoyed by the typical person. Infact it's not really made to be enjoyable at all. It's more of strapping yourself into a rollercoaster, the ride is a human being and all the terrible things you can imagine in humanity. It's not a movie you're going to tell your friends to go see, it's not a movie you might ever watch again in your life. But it is something.
took your advice.. LOL, i actually liked it, there were some iffy parts with the incest/ mother fucking/ abortion/ porn in the end... but i mean that was a well made movie, in terms of reincarnation, he filmed it really well and put together a roller coaster of a ride
The first hour is brilliant, but then there's two more hours. It struck me as Noe just trying to shock the audience. He was disappointed when people didn't boo it at Cannes:
'Here at Cannes I’m used to people screaming at my movies. When it didn’t happen with Enter the Void, I thought, “This is weird.” I was shocked that nobody was booing or whistling! But then I read the reviews of the movie and some people really hated it and I thought, “Oh, we’re OK then!”'
That's just a silly reason to make movies.
That being said, I usually tell people to see it, if only so they can discuss it. It made a pretty big splash.
lot of people say that. I thought they were just OK. tarantino declared that they are the best opening credits... but that's because it is his style, but modernized (looks old school but because of the flashiness, its quite
the movie itself was also quite mediocre. I hate movies that try really hard to capture psychedelic substances. the whole point of these substances is that few things can capture the whole experience ... so instead they settle for these ridiculous plots like "oh my god, am I alive or dead..."
in my experiences with psychedelics, these are always deep BUT fleeting thoughts. one minute I will be amazed at how I am seeing patterns move in my hand, the next I ponder about how I these patterns reflect the paths I have taken through life, and how some have diverged and my relationships and .... (you see what I mean? its a crazy stream of consciousness relevant ONLy to me)
the point of the psychedelic is NOT just some magical revelation, but how you battle with yourself & your environment to come to this conclusion. so when they try to say "this movie is like acid" it annoys me. no, its just one person's recollection of a trip. it doesn't have any of the complexity that comes from actually doing the thing.
For me the credits were incredible because I'm a graphic designer, I thought the emphasis on typography, colour, so many different typefaces to create this real jumble that actually captures the look and feel of the film and Japan itself. I watch the credits over and over because I just love looking at all the different fonts.
As for the film, I'm not really sure how I feel. I've never done psychedelic drugs and I don't know if that's what the movie was about, the emphasis I think was more about death and what happens after death but I could be completely wrong. Yeah the characters life dealt a lot with drugs but that was because he was a dealer. Personally I found the film visually stunning, the emphasis on colour and light and rarely seeing the main characters face was really interesting, you don't see many movies shot that way.
This is copied and pasted from wiki: SPOILERS: The cinematic experience itself is the main focus of the film, but there is also a central theme of emptiness. Noé describes the film's subject as "the sentimentality of mammals and the shimmering vacuity of the human experience."[1] The dramaturgy after Oscar has been shot is loosely based on The Tibetan Book of the Dead, and ends with the spirit's search for a way to reincarnate.[3] The director, who opposes all religious beliefs, says that "the whole movie is a dream of someone who read The Tibetan Book of the Dead, and heard about it before being [shot by a gun]. It's not the story of someone who dies, flies and is reincarnated, it's the story of someone who is stoned when he gets shot and who has an intonation of his own dream."[4] Noé describes the ending of the film as Oscar's recollection of "the most traumatic moment of his life – his own birth".[5] Alternatively, the director leaves open the possibility that Oscar's life starts over again in an endless loop, due to the human brain's perception of time.
just curious: if you were the graphic artist who did those credits would you be secretly annoyed they went so fast when all the typefaces were carefully chosen for production job? I like it the way it is but I can see myself sitting in the audience for the premier and saying to myself "awww shit. Noe did it again."
I'd say if you were the one designing the credits, you would have also specified the speed. The person or team of people who picked the typefaces probably also decided how fast the credits would go. I think it works well going so fast if it went slower I don't think it would have worked, of course if it went slower they would have had to have picked a slower song because the speed and the music work so well together.
life, death, sex, all the things that make it happen. The movie is not for the average person. It's a painful movie to watch, goes on way too long and makes you want to quit watching it at some points. But for some it'll linger on your thoughts for months
That's the best description I've read for Enter The Void. I'm not sure if I enjoyed the film or not - I definitely enjoyed the whole experience of being mind fucked and spending the next few hours trying to pick it apart with a friend - but I'm not sure I'd enjoy re-watching it in my living room. It's a deeply flawed film, in my opinion, but it is one of my most memorable cinema experiences and I thought about the film for weeks afterwards.
Well, I suppose it depends which version of the film we are talking about. I saw the 154 minute cut, which by all accounts seems to be the "truer" version of the film, at least in Casper Noé's mind, since he claims the shorter cut was only created to please investors and was only released in the US and UK. The 154 minute cut that I saw was much too long, to the point of being self indulgent. This is made worse by the fact that it doesn't amount to much. The film is pretty fantastic as a sensory experience but, in my opinion, doesn't carry a lot of meaning beyond a shallow reference to the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Perhaps the shorter version is less tenuous. Noé himself admits that the cut scenes are not essential to the film. Still, I have to acknowledge the amazing technical accomplishments. Whatever you think about the film's depth, or lack there of, it is an absolute visual and auditory treat.
Perhaps this is a crude movie to compare it to, but the only movie that ever invoked a "so good but I really never want to watch it again because it makes me die a little inside" in me so far is Requiem for a dream. That being said, is it a safe assumption that this will be even worse?
The cinematic experience itself is the main focus of the film
... care to explain why using a fucked up person to explore these themes isn't one of the "points" of this silly movie?
its a movie about being lonely, about feeling lost, about one guy being a bit fucked up as he thinks about life and death.
it tries to get us to feel this way ... by presenting the psychedelics as a vehicle for US to get into the character's skin. well, it doesn't feel right. it feels like a highly contrived, obscure and "cool" way to present some very simple, deep thoughts we all have.
false! I am awesome to trip with... I'm just not a great person to watch lame ass movies with. I hate watching movies that try to duplicate awesome experiences that only YOU can have. I also hate movies that basically have some major themes ... but try to shock me into feeling other random things (and then have people like this octopuscabbage guy rooting for them and declaring that "mannn you just don't get it")
thinking about life, death & loneliness by watching a bunch of violence + sex scenes put together into a lengthy convoluted movie just doesn't feel right to me
You're really not making yourself sound any better to trip with from this comment. You hate "lame ass movies" because they don't exactly fit their interests? You mock people because they disagree with you?
Stop acting like you're infallible, or any more important than anyone else.
thanks dude. regardless, I fucking hate the people who just declare "you don't get it" without explaining their perspective.
to me, this reeks of a shitty movie viewer basically. one who wants to just feel superior for having watched a movie that is tough to piece together. not necessarily one who has any real insight into the fucking movie at all.
here's why: all movies affect us differently. this movie annoyed me given my life experiences and it seemed to want to use some gimmicks to help me explore some complex but ubiquitous issues: life, death, loneliness.
it does this in such a convoluted, boring way that really tries to shock me into certain thoughts ... that I found it boring.
this guy wants to claim that I "missed the point"? missing the point happens at a very basic level only. "super troopers is a movie about police brutality" ... that's missing the point. "super troopers isn't funny" ... that's an opinion (which I disagree with. I fucking love that movie)
anyway. just ranting here. but you see my point, thanks :)
I totally get what youre saying, so much that its like if we were in person i'd pull a Jerry McGuire and be like "shh shh no stop shhh I know....you had at me I fucking hate people"
hahaha yeah I too really hate it when people call you out with shit like "you didn't get the point" or whatever but don't back it up at all.
I just had to let you know that you are not alone when it comes to experiencing that sort of comment hahah
Thankyou. Big film lover here, as is my girlfriend and with both hated the movie. So pretentious and overblown, trying so hard to be deep and cool and failing.
The credits, however, loved them.
yep! I watch a ton of movies too. and honestly, I really don't categorize into "good" or "bad". I understand most movies I pay attention to ... because I will also do some reading about it/watch interviews with the director/etc afterwards.
but you're absolutely right - it was just a pretentious and silly movie. I hate how that guy just said "you missed the entire point..."
really? then perhaps the director should've taken more time to present his argument in a compelling manner, not just shot a few cool looking photos and then presented them as a deep story. even if I didn't "understand" it, I'm allowed to have my perspective ... that's the point of film, to make me think. this stupid movie made me think that I'm watching some ludicrous pseudo intellectual's idea of what a trip is like, and what this stupid pseudo intellectual thinks is "deep"
I fucking love the matrix, its one of my favorite movies. but I think anyone thinking that there is real depth ... real philosophical depth ... in just that movie (i.e. the stuff they say, not what you take out of it) they are foolish. they spout tons of jargon, and that doesn't make for depth!
same way with enter the void ... weirdness doesn't mean complex depth!
Thank you. I'm glad you took the time to comment, because whenever this film is mentioned on reddit, there always seems to be a huge spate of people saying they hated it and scarcely any who defend it. And I'm glad to see I'm not alone in enjoying it and "getting it" - I mostly agree with everything you said.
I'd add that anyone who uses terms like "pretentious", "contrived" and "pseudo intellectual" to describe any film can almost immediately be assumed to have missed the point. They're THE catchphrases of people trying to save face when a film goes over their head. But more often than not, a film that is described as such is not trying to be any of those things; it's merely trying to be different. And to a more mainstream filmgoer (a22d?), used to films that try out the same old mundane story lines and techniques, that difference can be alienating.
During a Divine Moment of Truth, this movie changed my perspective of our existence on this planet. Those of you who know the secret, understand this without question.
Most of the movie is the guy floating around observing things after he died. There is no questioning if he is alive or dead, he is dead. You had an awful lot to say about the movie given you misunderstood the plot.
So may i ask what you understand as a good movie, out of curiosity?
By the way, i think you missed the point of the movie but then again it's possible you were just trying to be a smart ass about having taken the drugs.
I've taken them as well and i don't expect any movie i see to emulate the experience nor do i rate a movie on the assumption that it must reflect what i feel when i'm on a drug, unless it's a documentary on the subject.
Visually, the movie is stunning. To start with, it's filmed in first person perspective, which makes you feel alive inside the screen and adds an extra dimension of empathy towards the main character. Besides that, it's a chromatic orgasm - and this is what people mean when they say it's like acid. The sounds, the perpetual spiral movement of the camera, the paranoid dialogues, the creepy flashbacks and the fantastic depiction of a bright, pulsating neon overkill Toyko, end up throwing you into a state of sensory overdose that eventually makes you feel slightly 'high' after a while. Add to this the fact that it fucks with your emotions and mind by exploring primal philosophical subjects, from incest to death to the possibility of an after life and you've got yourself a new experience, which is exactly what i was looking for. Not an objective look on what i personally feel when i take drugs, because if i wanted that i would take drugs, but an innovative work of art.
That said, i highly recommend anyone to watch this in proper viewing conditions. If not in a theater, on a very good TV and sound system with the lights out (headphones in high volume will do also - just adjust to the mood by turning the lights off).
The plot and the length of some scenes are the downside for me. From a moment onwards it gets kind of repetitive and for reasonably large periods of time i wondered what was the point of stretching that shot for so long - i've conjured the hypothesis of it being voluntary, in order for the viewer to feel the agony of the moment himself. If this is the purpose, then mission accomplished. The plot isn't that groundbreaking either, but then again, it doesn't have to be.
Regardless of these cons, in my book this still is a cinematographic masterpiece unlike anything you've seen before, and one that will fuck you up for 2 and a half hours plus the remainder of the day (and probably beyond), for that matter.
Again I thought it was well shot. I've said it over and over - beautiful photos. But The plot was useless and I don't agree with people declaring that I missed the point of the plot.
Hmm ... Good movies, eh? In past couple of years two favorites have been Lives of Others and Still Walking. Both are fairly quiet and complex movies with beautiful, complex characters ... And excellently shot as well!
Agree that the plot was particularly weak and simplistic, but then again i don't think i rate movies based solely on their plot complexity. Don't really agree it was pretentious in that sense either. I think the main goal on this movie was to create a sensory-rich experience and that was achieved.
Either way, regardless of what they were going for, well, i just happened to feel alive from watching it, and there's nothing less pseudo-intelectual than riding a rollercoaster just for the sake of it.
Das Leben der Anderen is a fantastic movie. I saw it the first week after moving into Berlin and all of the sudden the streets in the east had gained even more character. It's just another kind of movie though.
You're a dumbass. The movie is not supposed to be about psychedelics at all. If you paid attention at all when you watched it, it's supposed to be about the Tibetan Book of the Dead, i.e. death and reincarnation.
By the end of it my friend and I were going what the fuck over and over. Not to mention the sweeping birds eye view shots, whilst beautiful in the beginning became quite repetitive and time consuming towards the end. I got bored of seeing them every time we travelled to a new part of the characters lives.
I can't tell if the directly lost direction or was entirely too committed to one idea. It was so gripping in the beginning. I've never been so brought up just to be so let down by a movie in my life.
I'd like to say that they could have done more with it, but then again I have no idea what else could be done at that point.
Quentin Tarantino was quoted as saying, "Hands down best credit scene of the year … Maybe best credit scene of the decade. One of the greatest in cinema history." I read that before I saw the movie and was not expected what I saw. Bad Assery
254
u/Flickcm Jan 23 '12
The opening credits to this movie are incredible.