Gaspar Noe's admiration for the late Stanley Kubrik is evident in most of this film. In fact, what is even more surprising is that a movie has been created from such thin material.
This is a film that depends on shocking its audience, as proven by the opening sequences. The credits are nightmarish, as are the scenes that show unrestrained violence perpetuated on the main characters. By confusing the spectator, Mr. Noe creates a suspense, as we all want to know what was the origin of such behavior. Most of this violence, I found, is a turnoff.
Mr. Noe is very clever in telling the story from the present to the past, as it certainly would have been a complete let down to see it in a chronological manner. If the director would have decided to do it differently, half of the theatre would have emptied because the last sections of the film are totally boring.
Did he need to have the scene in the Metro at all? How about the tunnel sequence? Did Mr. Noe have a need to show us in vivid detail what happens to a woman in a situation such as he presents it? Is it necessary to show Vincent Cassel with his 'thang' in full display? How about the disappearing genitalia in the leather bar? For that matter, how about the naked old man at the beginning of the story?
The advice to any would-be-swingers is: carry enough cash for a taxi, just in case the party sucks big time. Oh, and never go into an underpass anywhere in the world late at night, let alone a red tunnel.
This is a film that depends on shocking its audience, as proven by the opening sequences. The credits are nightmarish, as are the scenes that show unrestrained violence perpetuated on the main characters. By confusing the spectator, Mr. Noe creates a suspense, as we all want to know what was the origin of such behavior. Most of this violence, I found, is a turnoff.
Mr. Noe is very clever in telling the story from the present to the past, as it certainly would have been a complete let down to see it in a chronological manner. If the director would have decided to do it differently, half of the theatre would have emptied because the last sections of the film are totally boring.
Did he need to have the scene in the Metro at all? How about the tunnel sequence? Did Mr. Noe have a need to show us in vivid detail what happens to a woman in a situation such as he presents it? Is it necessary to show Vincent Cassel with his 'thang' in full display? How about the disappearing genitalia in the leather bar? For that matter, how about the naked old man at the beginning of the story?
The advice to any would-be-swingers is: carry enough cash for a taxi, just in case the party sucks big time. Oh, and never go into an underpass anywhere in the world late at night, let alone a red tunnel.