Unlike Noe's previous films, Vortex is an understated, slow-paced, intimate character piece. Who knew that Dario Argento could give such a brilliant performance? And Francoise Lebrun... just wow. The rest of the cast are fine in their roles as well, but this is a movie about two characters, and they were cast perfectly. Where the movie really struggles, however, is in its pacing and editing. It is simply 30-40 minutes too long. Scenes drag on endlessly. There can be a hypnotic quality to some of the mundane scenes, but not enough to justify the drag. A tighter edit would have made a difference. Perhaps one of these days we will get a director's cut that re-edits the movie and makes it a bit tighter overall. However, there is a lot to appreciate in the film. It is worth seeing for the acting performances alone. It takes on an important topic and handles it gracefully. It shows that the director is a versatile craftsman who is not afraid of breaking the mold and taking risks that mostly pay off.
31 Reviews
"La mort n'ouvre aucune porte"
Scotlord18 July 2021
I had the opportunity of seeing Gaspar's newest film at the 74th Cannes Film Festival this year. Being an admirer of his entire filmmography as well as one of my favorite working directors, I was very much excited to see this premiere. I knew close to nothing about it, but the poster and title seemed to offer somerthing both different and promising.
And I think we will all agree this is different. I was expecting a new version of "Enter The Void" this time dealing with old age instead of DMT, but this wasn't the case at all. This film isn't exactly completely new territory for Gaspar, but it's the first time he lazer focuses on making an emotional impact mainly through his actor's performances. In so many of his other works, his directing style is bold and brash, making use of several filmmaking techniques to match the style of his films in accordance with their substance. In "Irréversible", he filmed every scene in one take to add a sense of immersion and show both the ugly and the beauty of the events with little artifice. He also showed the events backwards, to add to the theme of time being the ultimate destructor. In "Enter The Void", he used POV shots and special effects to make the camera go through walls, in "I Stand Alone" he made great use of transitions between shots etc...
All of his previous films have had something to do with violence, drugs, sex, trauma, the human condition, time and death. His cinema now has the reputation for being intensely extreme, filled with shocking content and insane stories offering one-of-a-kind experiences for the viewer. And although this film is definetly a Gaspar Noé film, it truly doesn't fit in neatly with the rest of his filmmography.
Forget all the neon lights and the stroboscoping effects, forget the explicit sex scenes. Forget the hallucinogenic escapades and the nightmarish parties. This film deals with an aging couple comming to terms with their deaths and the impending doom that awaits them. In short, it's a film about old age, dementia and death. The first 20 minutes or so will clearly set the tone for the rest of the film, as they are almost completely silent, long takes of the two characters waking up and starting their day while someone on the radio explains the ways in which people cope with death and the meaning behind how we deal with grief.
There are still traces of Gaspar's filmmaking, most notably in his signature transitions using a black screen for one second between some shots, as well as the decision to have the entire film happen in split screen. According to him, this choice was to showcast the character's different expriences happenning at the same time, since, to quote from "I Stand Alone" : "we are born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Alone with your flesh, alone with your life which is like a tunnel that's impossible to share". Here, the split screen serves as a way of constantly reminding the spectator of this "tunnel".
However, these are the main two stylistic choices and the rest of the film rests entirely on the shoulders of the actors to carry the emotions in every scene, especially with a subject matter this bleak. When it comes to this, every one of them did their job perfectly (especially Françoise Lebrun), allowing for some of the most tragic, personnal and saddest moments in Gaspar's entire career. Never before had we felt this level of intimacy in so many scenes. You could find similar moments in "I Stand Alone" with the father/daughter relationship or the brother and sister love in "Enter The Void". Here, these moments are the core of the film, and when they come, they sure do it their mark.
However, there is one major problem I had with this film, which is something I have said about some of his other films, notably "Enter The Void" : it's just way too damn long. So many scenes and sequences drag out for minutes without any noticeable action or involvement. The characters are seen in their daily life and we are shown the incidents that come with living with somebody's dementia, notably Alzheimer's. As I've mentionned before, the film begins with very long takes of those daily actions, and how Françoise Lebrun's character copes (or rather how she fails to cope) with her disease. This goes on for the entire film, and the only moments breaking from this excrutiatingly slow pacing are the scenes of dialogue between the couple and their son, played by Alex Lutz. These scenes are incredibly well acted, and just like most of Gaspar's films, they were mostly improvised and you can tell. This felt right, since it adds to the sense of naturalism the film was clearly going for.
Unfortunately, I think the film falls short of greatness because of this. This reminded me of two other films : the first one is "Amour" by Michael Haneke for obvious reasons, but Haneke's style seemed more fit to tackle this topic in this manner. The second one is David Lowery's "A Ghost Story", which deals with grief and most notably, explores death and how we cope with it from an existential point of view. In "Vortex", Gaspar also explores these themes, but with a 2h20min runtime, he bores and eventually loses the spectator before the film's final minutes can truly have an impact.
I still enjoyed it for what it tried to be, and for the performences. It's also very refreshing to see a more personnal film from Gaspar, away from his usual reputation and for the first time without an R or NC-17 rating. But I simply cannot put aside how long this film seemed. Just like with "Irréversible", he wrote a 10-page script and ended up with a 2 hour film, which is one of his shortcomings. I will probably watch it again sometime, when I'll really be in the mood for this again, and maybe I'll give it a 7 instead of a 6 after a few more viewings. But for now, this will definitely not be his masterpiece.
And I think we will all agree this is different. I was expecting a new version of "Enter The Void" this time dealing with old age instead of DMT, but this wasn't the case at all. This film isn't exactly completely new territory for Gaspar, but it's the first time he lazer focuses on making an emotional impact mainly through his actor's performances. In so many of his other works, his directing style is bold and brash, making use of several filmmaking techniques to match the style of his films in accordance with their substance. In "Irréversible", he filmed every scene in one take to add a sense of immersion and show both the ugly and the beauty of the events with little artifice. He also showed the events backwards, to add to the theme of time being the ultimate destructor. In "Enter The Void", he used POV shots and special effects to make the camera go through walls, in "I Stand Alone" he made great use of transitions between shots etc...
All of his previous films have had something to do with violence, drugs, sex, trauma, the human condition, time and death. His cinema now has the reputation for being intensely extreme, filled with shocking content and insane stories offering one-of-a-kind experiences for the viewer. And although this film is definetly a Gaspar Noé film, it truly doesn't fit in neatly with the rest of his filmmography.
Forget all the neon lights and the stroboscoping effects, forget the explicit sex scenes. Forget the hallucinogenic escapades and the nightmarish parties. This film deals with an aging couple comming to terms with their deaths and the impending doom that awaits them. In short, it's a film about old age, dementia and death. The first 20 minutes or so will clearly set the tone for the rest of the film, as they are almost completely silent, long takes of the two characters waking up and starting their day while someone on the radio explains the ways in which people cope with death and the meaning behind how we deal with grief.
There are still traces of Gaspar's filmmaking, most notably in his signature transitions using a black screen for one second between some shots, as well as the decision to have the entire film happen in split screen. According to him, this choice was to showcast the character's different expriences happenning at the same time, since, to quote from "I Stand Alone" : "we are born alone, we live alone, we die alone. Alone with your flesh, alone with your life which is like a tunnel that's impossible to share". Here, the split screen serves as a way of constantly reminding the spectator of this "tunnel".
However, these are the main two stylistic choices and the rest of the film rests entirely on the shoulders of the actors to carry the emotions in every scene, especially with a subject matter this bleak. When it comes to this, every one of them did their job perfectly (especially Françoise Lebrun), allowing for some of the most tragic, personnal and saddest moments in Gaspar's entire career. Never before had we felt this level of intimacy in so many scenes. You could find similar moments in "I Stand Alone" with the father/daughter relationship or the brother and sister love in "Enter The Void". Here, these moments are the core of the film, and when they come, they sure do it their mark.
However, there is one major problem I had with this film, which is something I have said about some of his other films, notably "Enter The Void" : it's just way too damn long. So many scenes and sequences drag out for minutes without any noticeable action or involvement. The characters are seen in their daily life and we are shown the incidents that come with living with somebody's dementia, notably Alzheimer's. As I've mentionned before, the film begins with very long takes of those daily actions, and how Françoise Lebrun's character copes (or rather how she fails to cope) with her disease. This goes on for the entire film, and the only moments breaking from this excrutiatingly slow pacing are the scenes of dialogue between the couple and their son, played by Alex Lutz. These scenes are incredibly well acted, and just like most of Gaspar's films, they were mostly improvised and you can tell. This felt right, since it adds to the sense of naturalism the film was clearly going for.
Unfortunately, I think the film falls short of greatness because of this. This reminded me of two other films : the first one is "Amour" by Michael Haneke for obvious reasons, but Haneke's style seemed more fit to tackle this topic in this manner. The second one is David Lowery's "A Ghost Story", which deals with grief and most notably, explores death and how we cope with it from an existential point of view. In "Vortex", Gaspar also explores these themes, but with a 2h20min runtime, he bores and eventually loses the spectator before the film's final minutes can truly have an impact.
I still enjoyed it for what it tried to be, and for the performences. It's also very refreshing to see a more personnal film from Gaspar, away from his usual reputation and for the first time without an R or NC-17 rating. But I simply cannot put aside how long this film seemed. Just like with "Irréversible", he wrote a 10-page script and ended up with a 2 hour film, which is one of his shortcomings. I will probably watch it again sometime, when I'll really be in the mood for this again, and maybe I'll give it a 7 instead of a 6 after a few more viewings. But for now, this will definitely not be his masterpiece.
The Dangers of Dementia...
Xstal25 September 2022
Françoise Lebrun delivers an outstanding and unforgettable portrayal as Elle, a lady in her senior years struck down with dementia and living in a world that's alien, confusing, bewildering and extremely dangerous. So convincing is her presentation that you spend most of the film half believing that she must genuinely be suffering, that this is a documentary, a fly on the wall observation. Similarly, Dario Argento fulfils the role of the loving but ever so slightly irritated grumpy old man, wishing to get on with his life while more often than not, turning a blind eye to his wife's descent, knowing only too well the consequences once others take control of the situation.
This film recognises what most people have gone through, or will go through, either directly or as close witnesses. Filmed in an imaginative style by the progressive Gaspar Noé, my only complaint is that I was extremely keen for the end to arrive as it outstayed its welcome by around 30 minutes and, as such, I'm unlikely to revisit it again any time soon.
This film recognises what most people have gone through, or will go through, either directly or as close witnesses. Filmed in an imaginative style by the progressive Gaspar Noé, my only complaint is that I was extremely keen for the end to arrive as it outstayed its welcome by around 30 minutes and, as such, I'm unlikely to revisit it again any time soon.
A whole new kind of masterpiece from one of modern film's finest
Stay_away_from_the_Metropol31 May 2022
Well, I've been thinking about this one for a week or so. It's an incredibly special film and, to my knowledge, a very singular one. I've never seen such a realistic death-focused movie in my life. Though it has Gaspar Noe's signature bleakness, it is completely unlike everything else he's made, and feels much more humble. Though he's mentioned the correlation in interviews, it feels very clear that his own near-death experience (brain hemorrhaging a couple years back) shifted his heart in a sense. This is easily Noe's most heartfelt film.
Of course, this film is NOT for everyone. Aside from the bleakness of the experience itself, it also runs in what feels like real-time. Even for me, there were segments that were challenging to stay with because they were so slow, but in the end, it's all made with such great intent and vision that I think I might appreciate some of those sluggish scenes even more upon a second viewing. I mean, of COURSE it's slow, you are living in the shoes of an old married couple in their 80's during the last few months of their life!
I don't think I have ever seen a split screen implemented so effectively in a movie. I often found myself fascinated by the fact that when you have two ultra slow sequences occurring in each of the split screens, it adds up to one perfectly "normally" paced experience. And, all I will say is that, the split screen seems to take on more and more artistic purpose as the film goes on.
The acting performances from both leads are absolutely astonishing. As a diehard fan of Dario Argento's entire cinematic universe for the last 20 years, I have never seen him act in anything and had no idea what to expect from him in Vortex. He pretty much blew my mind - what he brings to the film is more warm and endearing than anything - in fact it is one of the most touching performances I have seen in years. Of course, this all leads to a high level of effectiveness when it comes time for his character to focus on what is the opposite of such light feelings. It comes as no surprise that the Italian maestro of murder cinema is capable of one of the most believable portrayals of death-centric scenarios when he's placed in front of the camera. This has truly brought the Argento legacy to a whole other level. And then we have the incredible Francoise Lebrun who truly makes the whole movie what it is - her portrayal of dementia is just beyond. It does not feel like you are watching a movie - it truly feels like you are LIVING in the realm of the real thing. It is hard to put into words beyond that. She deserves the highest of accolades.
There is so much to say about this film but I will leave it at that. Gaspar's genius seems to know No(e) bounds. It is definitely some form of masterpiece - the only reason I am giving it 9 instead of 10 is because it is simply not FUN to watch - it's grueling, of course! I hope that Noe has at least a couple more up his sleeve. I will watch his films until he himself is gone! Everything he makes!
Of course, this film is NOT for everyone. Aside from the bleakness of the experience itself, it also runs in what feels like real-time. Even for me, there were segments that were challenging to stay with because they were so slow, but in the end, it's all made with such great intent and vision that I think I might appreciate some of those sluggish scenes even more upon a second viewing. I mean, of COURSE it's slow, you are living in the shoes of an old married couple in their 80's during the last few months of their life!
I don't think I have ever seen a split screen implemented so effectively in a movie. I often found myself fascinated by the fact that when you have two ultra slow sequences occurring in each of the split screens, it adds up to one perfectly "normally" paced experience. And, all I will say is that, the split screen seems to take on more and more artistic purpose as the film goes on.
The acting performances from both leads are absolutely astonishing. As a diehard fan of Dario Argento's entire cinematic universe for the last 20 years, I have never seen him act in anything and had no idea what to expect from him in Vortex. He pretty much blew my mind - what he brings to the film is more warm and endearing than anything - in fact it is one of the most touching performances I have seen in years. Of course, this all leads to a high level of effectiveness when it comes time for his character to focus on what is the opposite of such light feelings. It comes as no surprise that the Italian maestro of murder cinema is capable of one of the most believable portrayals of death-centric scenarios when he's placed in front of the camera. This has truly brought the Argento legacy to a whole other level. And then we have the incredible Francoise Lebrun who truly makes the whole movie what it is - her portrayal of dementia is just beyond. It does not feel like you are watching a movie - it truly feels like you are LIVING in the realm of the real thing. It is hard to put into words beyond that. She deserves the highest of accolades.
There is so much to say about this film but I will leave it at that. Gaspar's genius seems to know No(e) bounds. It is definitely some form of masterpiece - the only reason I am giving it 9 instead of 10 is because it is simply not FUN to watch - it's grueling, of course! I hope that Noe has at least a couple more up his sleeve. I will watch his films until he himself is gone! Everything he makes!
Absorbing and hard-hitting
Jeremy_Urquhart17 October 2022
Even by Noe's standards, Vortex is truly unflinching and horrifically brutal, and does so without showing the sorts of extreme sexual and/or violent content that can often be found in his other films.
There's no real optimism or sentimentality. This film is just "getting old is horrible and here's what can happen" with no filter. The characters are similarly honest- Dario Argento's character is asked how his wife is. He bluntly replies "Not good." His character's son echoes a similar sentiment.
It takes a similar premise to 2012's Amour yet makes it even more impactful. It uses a bolder stylistic decision too, which I won't spoil here (I think it kind of works. It makes some moments extra devastating, but I couldn't always work out its explicit purpose on a scene to scene basis).
While it's definitely not a fun or fast-paced movie, 142 minutes passed by surprisingly quick, which I think speaks to how absorbing and well-acted it is. It may well be Gaspar Noe's best film so far.
There's no real optimism or sentimentality. This film is just "getting old is horrible and here's what can happen" with no filter. The characters are similarly honest- Dario Argento's character is asked how his wife is. He bluntly replies "Not good." His character's son echoes a similar sentiment.
It takes a similar premise to 2012's Amour yet makes it even more impactful. It uses a bolder stylistic decision too, which I won't spoil here (I think it kind of works. It makes some moments extra devastating, but I couldn't always work out its explicit purpose on a scene to scene basis).
While it's definitely not a fun or fast-paced movie, 142 minutes passed by surprisingly quick, which I think speaks to how absorbing and well-acted it is. It may well be Gaspar Noe's best film so far.
"To all those whose brains will decompose before their hearts."
stylss7 May 2022
Intimate, haunting, quiet, and sad with very raw and incredible performances by the two main characters. It's very slow but the unique transitions paired with the split screen keeps your eyes constantly darting around trying to take in everything which at times isn't much at all. I have to admit this was uncomfortably long and it didn't completely sink in until the very final scene. Getting old is so scary.
"Dedicated to those whose brains decompose before their hearts do"
ckline-3236111 October 2021
I knew nothing at all about this film going in, and you should know nothing as well. This gift of a film screened and my local film festival (FNC 2021) followed by a late night screening of "LVX ÆTERNA", and "VORTEX" was definitely my favorite of the two. My friend who told me the festival also said that Gaspar Noé's last film would be screening and it triggered a "Vietnam flashback" to my first experience watching "CLIMAX", with psychedelic visual and a killer soundtrack, and I'm not going to lie that was what I was expecting from VORTEX. However, Gaspar presented us with a quiet, contemplative piece of cinema that I believe is nothing less than a love-letter to cinema and filmmaking itself. Bravo Gaspar!
Not your average Gaspar Noe movie
sarahbasak13 April 2022
Watched Vortex at the very first night it was screening in Paris. To be fair, I don't understand French and there were no subtitles, but it made me feel vulnerable and bitter even in that circumstance.
The movie doesn't contain scenes of any kind of abuse as other Gaspar Noe movies, but still, it leaves you looking blank at the screen. Before going in to the movie theater I knew what the movie was about and I've seen the trailer as well; however, Noe still managed to impress me and others. When the movie ended everyone at the theater was extremely quite, and their faces looked like the movie touched their souls somehow; and I think that's because every single scene is so real. There are no surreal settings or extreme characters that you probably wouldn't meet throughout your life, every scene feels like you could have been there.
Also, the split screen (in my opinion) explains how even though you meet people and spend some, or most of your life with them, at the end, you're all alone. I feel like this is a common theme Noe enjoys reminding his viewers, and to me, this technique did the job quite right. I especially enjoyed watching Françoise Lebrun's facial expression and hand while the screen was splitting: I don't know whether this was done on purpose, but it made me think that she was anxious because she was realizing how they're drawn apart, and tried to prevent it until the very last moment.
Structure-wise, it's nothing like other movies of Gaspar Noe's- I guess it's more of an experimental one; so you might be disappointed if you expect the crazy visuals, the scenes built around 'dirty realism', or that underground feeling in general. But feeling-wise, Gaspar Noe once again managed to draw the audience into their own inner worlds and leave them alone with their staggering emotions. I definitely think this movie is more than another product of the culture industry that you consume mindlessly and instinctively, and rather an actual piece of art that makes you feel emotions. Can't wait to see the English version!
The movie doesn't contain scenes of any kind of abuse as other Gaspar Noe movies, but still, it leaves you looking blank at the screen. Before going in to the movie theater I knew what the movie was about and I've seen the trailer as well; however, Noe still managed to impress me and others. When the movie ended everyone at the theater was extremely quite, and their faces looked like the movie touched their souls somehow; and I think that's because every single scene is so real. There are no surreal settings or extreme characters that you probably wouldn't meet throughout your life, every scene feels like you could have been there.
Also, the split screen (in my opinion) explains how even though you meet people and spend some, or most of your life with them, at the end, you're all alone. I feel like this is a common theme Noe enjoys reminding his viewers, and to me, this technique did the job quite right. I especially enjoyed watching Françoise Lebrun's facial expression and hand while the screen was splitting: I don't know whether this was done on purpose, but it made me think that she was anxious because she was realizing how they're drawn apart, and tried to prevent it until the very last moment.
Structure-wise, it's nothing like other movies of Gaspar Noe's- I guess it's more of an experimental one; so you might be disappointed if you expect the crazy visuals, the scenes built around 'dirty realism', or that underground feeling in general. But feeling-wise, Gaspar Noe once again managed to draw the audience into their own inner worlds and leave them alone with their staggering emotions. I definitely think this movie is more than another product of the culture industry that you consume mindlessly and instinctively, and rather an actual piece of art that makes you feel emotions. Can't wait to see the English version!
Gaspar Noe proves he is one of the most exciting filmmakers working today.
yeqks9 May 2022
A slow moving, disturbing, and emotionally powerful cinematic experience. Gaspar really doesn't disappoint, as this film packs some of the most potent performances in any of his previous films, Dario Argento, François Lebrun and Alex Lutz do a surprisingly amazing job performing. The split screen used in the film's visuals are wonderfully implemented with a clear artistic purpose, the film is incredibly well shot and though the pacing is very slow it never feels dull whatsoever. The disturbing moments are much more subtle and quiet when compared to Noe's previous works, though their subtlety doesn't hinder these moments whatsoever. The dialogue is wonderful, every bit of human drama between these characters feels like it was ripped right out of reality with how raw every second is, at points it feels like I'm watching a documentary rather than a drama.
My main issues lie with the film's narrative feeling a little scatter-brained and random, a few plot threads feel picked up and dropped without much development and though I appreciate the use of empty scenes that feel like nothingness as a way to illustrate how our lives are made up of 50% nothingness, there's a point where those additions aren't needed anymore.
My main issues lie with the film's narrative feeling a little scatter-brained and random, a few plot threads feel picked up and dropped without much development and though I appreciate the use of empty scenes that feel like nothingness as a way to illustrate how our lives are made up of 50% nothingness, there's a point where those additions aren't needed anymore.
stages of dementia
christopher-underwood27 September 2022
The Vortex presumably is partly inspired by Gaspar Noe's almost fatal brain haemorrhage in 2020 and maybe in his earlier films have their own vortex. An old couple struggling with the stages of dementia and death and the two, actor Francoise Lebrun and famous director, Dario Argento are both amazing. Although it is Argento, who doesn't really even speak French, gives a stunning performance. The film is rather long but very well done with split screens the two much on their own in their own world. We see the couple and gradually we really think just how terrible it is and we see what is coming.
Vortex
M0n0_bogdan27 February 2023
Ok, so Gaspar Noe chose this story, a heartbreaking story on its own. But the fact that he himself had a life-threatening brain hemorrhage makes this film much more personal. And this somewhat unique approach (that feels a bit of a gimmick) to filming this family drama makes it all a layer deeper and more interesting.
I just can hope my parents don't go on the mental health issues route at an old age. I can hope that for everyone but for some it is inevitable. Right now I feel incapable of forming meaningful words regarding this film. It was interesting to see Dario Argento as a main character, he did a great job and he carried this movie.
All in all, it's still a very Gaspar Noe film in the sense that it makes you uncomfortable with such ease it turns into a horror movie.
I just can hope my parents don't go on the mental health issues route at an old age. I can hope that for everyone but for some it is inevitable. Right now I feel incapable of forming meaningful words regarding this film. It was interesting to see Dario Argento as a main character, he did a great job and he carried this movie.
All in all, it's still a very Gaspar Noe film in the sense that it makes you uncomfortable with such ease it turns into a horror movie.
Sobering and frequently pretty depressing movie
Horst_In_Translation13 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
"Vortex" is a co-production between France, Belgium and Monaco from 2021 and it got released here not too long ago, so still a pretty new movie and outside of Europe it may even take a little longer until this film can finally be seen. The language is almost exclusively French. The film comes relatively close to the 2.5-hour mark, which means it is very long. The director and writer of this drama is Gaspar Noé, who was born in Argentina, but has focused on French-language films for a long time now. I like some of his older stuff, so I got curious about this one here as well. But it was also the subject that made me more curious. I will get to that later. The two lead actors are Dario Argento and Françoise Lebrun. The latter started appearing in films in the early 1970s, so this is kind of her 50th anniversary and Argento has been part of the industry for many, many decades too, also as a filmmaker himself obviously, both writer and director, and not just an actor, so it is interesting to see him in front of the camera exclusively this time with Noé in charge. Noé by the way will turn 60 soon as well and I somehow thought he was still younger. But you can read his year of birth very early on. Just like you are shown the year of birth of the two aforementioned lead actors. This was absolutely intentional. Their ages are a key factor in this film, or I should say the characters' ages, so Noé also wanted to show us that the people working in key positions on this movie were not young anymore either. The credits also feel very Noé, the style of them pretty much and how they are not really easy to read because of that. Also of course that these credits were shown before the film. Not at the end or so as it is usually the case. The end is the end. Nothing follows there anymore and it totally makes sense as a creative decision.
Also have to mention Alex Lutz here, a César-winning actor himself who plays the son of the two protagonists. This son has his very own problems linked to drugs and addiction. But let's look at the parents first now: The female is struggling with dementia and has better days and poorer days pretty much. During her bad days, she leaves the house with no sense of direction at all until her husband eventually finds her and picks her up to get home again. The husband has plans to release a book he is about to write. Well, actually he has almost nothing yet. Just a quote by Edgar Allan Poe and the title of the book really. And many pages of notes pretty much. I did like the Poe quote though, about life being a dream within a dream. Interesting idea. No surprise at all that the book does not get finished, barely started because both main characters die in the end. It is somewhat interesting how it is the man who dies first and not the woman as we could have guessed. The action moved so back and forth on several occasions that it was never clear what would happen. The man may be healthy in terms of his mental state, but suffered a stroke in the past and is in general not in a particularly good condition at all with his heart issues that eventually also take his life. It was fairly impressive what his wife did though when we see her succeed in calling her son and tell him to send an ambulance. Of course, she could have called the ambulance directly herself too, but nonetheless if we look at how they doubt a little earlier that she could handle such a situation at all, it was a good achievement by her. Still, it cannot save the man. He dies in the hospital a little later. Pay attention to the colors and effects Noé uses there. How the screen turns into some kind of muddy green basically the moment the man dies. And also the exact same approach when the woman dies later on.
I had some wild guesses, like for example that the woman could be the only one who makes it out alive in the end and that the son maybe dies first even from an overdose. Noé is clearly playing with us there when he shows us how the son takes this addict to his home and also how he smokes crack on one occasion with his own very young son watching. Great dad for sure. There is also a question of morale before that when he tells a friend that his mother is doing poorly and the question is basically what is worse: Getting old or dying from an overdose? Maybe you have seen Amour if you consider watching this film or already have. You should read my review anyway only if you have seen Vortex already. I thought there were some parallels between this and Haneke's Amour. The key subject of Alzheimer's of course. The old woman is struggling with it. The film is in the French language. In the end, both die. The word "amour" (love) is mentioned on a few occasions. The woman dies from suffocation under a pillow even if the one pressing it onto her head is somebody else this time. Not her husband. It is a rather well-off family. Nice place they live in and they have had good careers. And of course their child with his (not her here) own problems really. But the film also delivers on its own. I think the writing was really good at times. I think the scene in which Argento's character gets mad at the little boy was very memorable. He just had to deal with too much. The scene in which the two grown-up men talk about their mother/wife and what they should do with her was fairly heartbreaking. How she reacts. Also the moment Argento's character states that he is not ready to leave his home for good reminded me a bit of Anthony Hopkins in The Father. That was maybe just me though.
Then there is also the scene in which we have the female protagonist not remember where she is and also also not remember her husband when she tells her son she wants to go home and that Argento's character is following her around. I think this was maybe the very best acting moment from the entire film. Lebrun did really well overall and I think she gave the best performance here, a bit better than Argento who is also quite good. I liked how they referenced his character's Italian nationality too. Just like the actor's. Anyway, if Riva was probably second in Oscar race back then, then Lebrun deserves the same accolades. Which she will not be getting of course. It would be extremely surprising if this film scores a lot of awards attention overseas and almost a sensation if it ends up nominated for one or several Oscars. Another thing that has to be talked about is the split screen. Between husband and wife. This way there was always a black bar between them. Separating them and when they were united and you could see them both on both sides, then conflict ensued nonetheless, like when the husband brings her home. The flower gesture cannot change any of that. Their truly loving and caring relationship days are a thing of the past unfortunately. This becomes most obvious when she takes all his notes and flushes them down the toilet. With what he has to say to her directly afterwards. Noé is a filmmaker who is as unpredictable as it gets, so this split screen structure was already a surprise really, but he breaks it himself on quite a few occasions. It makes sense of course that one side is black when one character has died, but I am rather talking about how he switches sides here and there in terms of who is left and who is right. Or also on one occasion we see the grandson on one side, simply when there is nothing to say about one of the two elderly people. Or also the couple's grown-up son is seen on one side too when the story focuses a bit on him. Mostly when he is away from his parents and we find out a bit about his own life there.
Another thing linked to the split screen that caught my attention was how basically when they were in the same room sitting there and talking to each other, it was basically like just one camera shot. You could think that at least. Until the characters start moving and then we see it is actually two shots still. The two perspectives do not fit together into one harmonic shot. This kind of satisfaction is nothing you will get from Noé in this pretty depressing film. Instead, you get for example a good look at the two old people right after they have died. You see further misery when the female simply does not understand that her man has died and asks her son how he is. The son who himself is struggling really hard with what happened. There is also conflict between him and his parents, or more like the father when the son is told that he is the one who needs it the most to be put into a home for the elderly or a home where somebody takes care of him. There were so many moments and scenes that felt somewhat special when watching and I could write a full paragraph about most of these actually and elaborate on what Noé did there and why it was kinda special, but that would then not fit at all into a 10k limit, so I shall leave it at that and simply say that this is a film you can surely go for. I am not sure if it really has to be seen at a movie theater as I think this is also a film you can simply watch at home and it will not go south in terms of quality when seen on a small screen instead of a really big one. I must say, however, I felt that this film could have been slightly shorter. It did not drag so much that it ruined the experience, but there were segments that did not add too much for me. For example everything happening between the man's death and the woman's death felt a bit too long for my taste, so maybe two hours total would have been enough. Interesting reference in the end too with the windows because this is where the film began. And seeing the apartment getting emptier and emptier was extremely sad. I guess everybody is afraid of having to empty their parents' home. It's surely one of the days you look forward to the least in your life. Okay, this is it then. I give "Vortex" a thumbs-up, but not a really enthusiastic one. "Amour" is the superior film, but only because of how good it is. This one here is not bad either.
Also have to mention Alex Lutz here, a César-winning actor himself who plays the son of the two protagonists. This son has his very own problems linked to drugs and addiction. But let's look at the parents first now: The female is struggling with dementia and has better days and poorer days pretty much. During her bad days, she leaves the house with no sense of direction at all until her husband eventually finds her and picks her up to get home again. The husband has plans to release a book he is about to write. Well, actually he has almost nothing yet. Just a quote by Edgar Allan Poe and the title of the book really. And many pages of notes pretty much. I did like the Poe quote though, about life being a dream within a dream. Interesting idea. No surprise at all that the book does not get finished, barely started because both main characters die in the end. It is somewhat interesting how it is the man who dies first and not the woman as we could have guessed. The action moved so back and forth on several occasions that it was never clear what would happen. The man may be healthy in terms of his mental state, but suffered a stroke in the past and is in general not in a particularly good condition at all with his heart issues that eventually also take his life. It was fairly impressive what his wife did though when we see her succeed in calling her son and tell him to send an ambulance. Of course, she could have called the ambulance directly herself too, but nonetheless if we look at how they doubt a little earlier that she could handle such a situation at all, it was a good achievement by her. Still, it cannot save the man. He dies in the hospital a little later. Pay attention to the colors and effects Noé uses there. How the screen turns into some kind of muddy green basically the moment the man dies. And also the exact same approach when the woman dies later on.
I had some wild guesses, like for example that the woman could be the only one who makes it out alive in the end and that the son maybe dies first even from an overdose. Noé is clearly playing with us there when he shows us how the son takes this addict to his home and also how he smokes crack on one occasion with his own very young son watching. Great dad for sure. There is also a question of morale before that when he tells a friend that his mother is doing poorly and the question is basically what is worse: Getting old or dying from an overdose? Maybe you have seen Amour if you consider watching this film or already have. You should read my review anyway only if you have seen Vortex already. I thought there were some parallels between this and Haneke's Amour. The key subject of Alzheimer's of course. The old woman is struggling with it. The film is in the French language. In the end, both die. The word "amour" (love) is mentioned on a few occasions. The woman dies from suffocation under a pillow even if the one pressing it onto her head is somebody else this time. Not her husband. It is a rather well-off family. Nice place they live in and they have had good careers. And of course their child with his (not her here) own problems really. But the film also delivers on its own. I think the writing was really good at times. I think the scene in which Argento's character gets mad at the little boy was very memorable. He just had to deal with too much. The scene in which the two grown-up men talk about their mother/wife and what they should do with her was fairly heartbreaking. How she reacts. Also the moment Argento's character states that he is not ready to leave his home for good reminded me a bit of Anthony Hopkins in The Father. That was maybe just me though.
Then there is also the scene in which we have the female protagonist not remember where she is and also also not remember her husband when she tells her son she wants to go home and that Argento's character is following her around. I think this was maybe the very best acting moment from the entire film. Lebrun did really well overall and I think she gave the best performance here, a bit better than Argento who is also quite good. I liked how they referenced his character's Italian nationality too. Just like the actor's. Anyway, if Riva was probably second in Oscar race back then, then Lebrun deserves the same accolades. Which she will not be getting of course. It would be extremely surprising if this film scores a lot of awards attention overseas and almost a sensation if it ends up nominated for one or several Oscars. Another thing that has to be talked about is the split screen. Between husband and wife. This way there was always a black bar between them. Separating them and when they were united and you could see them both on both sides, then conflict ensued nonetheless, like when the husband brings her home. The flower gesture cannot change any of that. Their truly loving and caring relationship days are a thing of the past unfortunately. This becomes most obvious when she takes all his notes and flushes them down the toilet. With what he has to say to her directly afterwards. Noé is a filmmaker who is as unpredictable as it gets, so this split screen structure was already a surprise really, but he breaks it himself on quite a few occasions. It makes sense of course that one side is black when one character has died, but I am rather talking about how he switches sides here and there in terms of who is left and who is right. Or also on one occasion we see the grandson on one side, simply when there is nothing to say about one of the two elderly people. Or also the couple's grown-up son is seen on one side too when the story focuses a bit on him. Mostly when he is away from his parents and we find out a bit about his own life there.
Another thing linked to the split screen that caught my attention was how basically when they were in the same room sitting there and talking to each other, it was basically like just one camera shot. You could think that at least. Until the characters start moving and then we see it is actually two shots still. The two perspectives do not fit together into one harmonic shot. This kind of satisfaction is nothing you will get from Noé in this pretty depressing film. Instead, you get for example a good look at the two old people right after they have died. You see further misery when the female simply does not understand that her man has died and asks her son how he is. The son who himself is struggling really hard with what happened. There is also conflict between him and his parents, or more like the father when the son is told that he is the one who needs it the most to be put into a home for the elderly or a home where somebody takes care of him. There were so many moments and scenes that felt somewhat special when watching and I could write a full paragraph about most of these actually and elaborate on what Noé did there and why it was kinda special, but that would then not fit at all into a 10k limit, so I shall leave it at that and simply say that this is a film you can surely go for. I am not sure if it really has to be seen at a movie theater as I think this is also a film you can simply watch at home and it will not go south in terms of quality when seen on a small screen instead of a really big one. I must say, however, I felt that this film could have been slightly shorter. It did not drag so much that it ruined the experience, but there were segments that did not add too much for me. For example everything happening between the man's death and the woman's death felt a bit too long for my taste, so maybe two hours total would have been enough. Interesting reference in the end too with the windows because this is where the film began. And seeing the apartment getting emptier and emptier was extremely sad. I guess everybody is afraid of having to empty their parents' home. It's surely one of the days you look forward to the least in your life. Okay, this is it then. I give "Vortex" a thumbs-up, but not a really enthusiastic one. "Amour" is the superior film, but only because of how good it is. This one here is not bad either.
Unfortunately too long
cschmidt-4344413 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I really wanted to like this movie. As a big Gaspar Noé fan I looked forward to watch this movie but it suffers from one of Gaspar's biggest flaws: Almost no story but loooots of running time. At least 1 hour could've been cut. Most of the time the characters don't seem to do anything. The subject is important but the way the story was handled makes it seem "uninteresting". There are very few conflicts and when they appear they are too subtle and almost non-existing. Maybe I'm blinded by the fact that Gaspar is a very scadalous director but he missed with this one.
Apart from the fact that there is not much content to justify the 2:22 h run time I kinda dislike the point of time the story takes place. From the very beginning everybody seems to have settled things already, they accepted the situation and every discussion or drama ends immediatly.
What I really liked was the way this movie was filmed. Especially in the end when you see that one part of the main character is absend.
Apart from the fact that there is not much content to justify the 2:22 h run time I kinda dislike the point of time the story takes place. From the very beginning everybody seems to have settled things already, they accepted the situation and every discussion or drama ends immediatly.
What I really liked was the way this movie was filmed. Especially in the end when you see that one part of the main character is absend.
A heartfelt, quietly searing drama - this is Noé's masterpiece
I_Ailurophile6 January 2023
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." That's how the saying goes, right? Does it or should it also apply to watching films from the same director? Heretofore I've seen four other pictures that Gaspar Noé has made, and I specifically liked one of them. (Well, maybe like 70-80% of one, if we're being honest.) And still I come back for more, in hopes that I'll find a movie that will change my mind about the filmmaker. That persistence has finally paid off, for in my experience so far, this is surely the best thing Noé has done. It might actually be the best thing Dario Argento has been involved with, for that matter. There was maybe still room for improvement; I think there are a few points where some dialogue, or seconds or even minutes of the length, could have been left on the cutting room floor without diminishing the end product. Yet ultimately such subjective faults are decidedly minor in light of what this otherwise represents. Even more to the point: where some of the man's other features have felt self-indulgent ('Enter the void'), or "daring" or "artistic" but emptily so to one degree or another ('Irreversible,' 'Lux Aeterna'), 'Vortex' readily comes across as deeply, painfully honest, and personal, and therefore immediately comes from a place of far greater strength and power than his other works. This isn't exactly an easy watch, but it's nonetheless lovely even as it's excruciating, and at last Noé may have made that film that will be his most enduring legacy.
The small primary cast turn in performances of stark authenticity that's immensely gratifying. Argento and Francoise Lebrun above all, but also Alex Lutz, are given roles that are difficult precisely because they're so heavily understated, real, and natural, and close to the heart. These qualities manifest strong gravity matching the subdued, sparing, but heavy story at hand, and each actor is wonderful in the supreme nuance and unreserved genuineness with which they bring their characters to life. Other pictures have told tales of the struggles of old age, declining health, and mental illness, yet few if any with the utmost subtlety and downtrodden panache as Noé achieves here. Most of us have surely watched a grandparent go through the deterioration that Elle and Lui do; if we're lucky, we haven't yet or won't see it in our parents; we dread going through it in any capacity, least of all ourselves. Yet Noé, his cast, and his crew bring the realities of aging and death front and center with a delicate but unmistakable purpose that makes us stare it all in the face. The filmmaker deserves significant credit as both writer and director, summoning this dour drama and also expertly, meticulously orchestrating every shot and scene. Much love as well to regular collaborator Benoit Debie for soft yet mindful cinematography that lets every aching detail ring out with vivid clarity, and editor Denis Bedlow, who unquestionably had an enormous task on hand to compile and sequence a feature in which scenes play out from multiple angles within a matter of minutes. Their contributions do so much to enrich a viewing experience that's already highly laudable.
Every line and scene is crafted with critical, attentive care and obvious devotion to the sad truth of not just aging and failing health, but aging and failing health in a modern society where even the most tight-knit families tend to live apart, and ailments are suffered in solitude and silence. Such content is difficult, but important and rewarding - and realized with a warm, gentle, yet unwavering vision. That vision includes rather ingenious use of the split-screen presentation that Noé previously employed in 'Lux Aeterna'; I was mostly unimpressed with the novelty in that instance, as it needlessly amplified the chaotic feel of the movie, but here I think it's rendered with far more conscientiousness that enhances the storytelling. At the same time that the dual perspective theoretically expands our perception of the course of events, it nonetheless serves to emphasize the smallness of Elle and Lui's world - and the loneliness of their experiences, even when they're side by side - and furthers the sense of enclosure and claustrophobia (even in those few instances when a scene takes place outdoors) that's chiefly fostered by the superb choice of medium format for the framing. Rarely has the particular technical craft of a film been so important to the narrative it communicates, and rarely have these elements been blended so smoothly. The result here is simply brilliant.
I've been waiting and hoping for Noé to prove himself to me, to give me a movie that unremittingly demonstrates his capabilities as a writer and director. Up til now the nearest I think he came to accomplishing that was with 2018's 'Climax,' yet even for as smart and sharp as it was in most every way, still it was uneven and imperfect. Finally, with 'Vortex,' Noé illustrates untarnished mastery of the medium that deserves far more recognition, to the point that I'm aghast this hasn't gotten more attention. The story that unfolds is dreadfully real, and quietly spellbinding, but for all that, perfect. Argento, Lebrun, and Lutz give performances of a lifetime. The direction, cinematography, and editing, and all other aspects of the work behind the scenes, are exquisite and flawless. It's tremendously impactful in the best and worst of ways, unflaggingly intelligent and soulful at every turn. Whatever one thinks of Noé otherwise - I'm the first to admit that I've been less than kind in my assessment elsewhere - this is the movie that he was born to make. This is the movie we've been waiting for him to make. By the nature of the content I can understand how this won't appeal to all, and it's a pointedly uncomfortable view. It is also, however, absolutely extraordinary, a marvelous credit to all involved, and frankly an outright must-see. However you need to go about finding it, 'Vortex' is exceptional, and earns my highest recommendation and most sincere gratitude.
The small primary cast turn in performances of stark authenticity that's immensely gratifying. Argento and Francoise Lebrun above all, but also Alex Lutz, are given roles that are difficult precisely because they're so heavily understated, real, and natural, and close to the heart. These qualities manifest strong gravity matching the subdued, sparing, but heavy story at hand, and each actor is wonderful in the supreme nuance and unreserved genuineness with which they bring their characters to life. Other pictures have told tales of the struggles of old age, declining health, and mental illness, yet few if any with the utmost subtlety and downtrodden panache as Noé achieves here. Most of us have surely watched a grandparent go through the deterioration that Elle and Lui do; if we're lucky, we haven't yet or won't see it in our parents; we dread going through it in any capacity, least of all ourselves. Yet Noé, his cast, and his crew bring the realities of aging and death front and center with a delicate but unmistakable purpose that makes us stare it all in the face. The filmmaker deserves significant credit as both writer and director, summoning this dour drama and also expertly, meticulously orchestrating every shot and scene. Much love as well to regular collaborator Benoit Debie for soft yet mindful cinematography that lets every aching detail ring out with vivid clarity, and editor Denis Bedlow, who unquestionably had an enormous task on hand to compile and sequence a feature in which scenes play out from multiple angles within a matter of minutes. Their contributions do so much to enrich a viewing experience that's already highly laudable.
Every line and scene is crafted with critical, attentive care and obvious devotion to the sad truth of not just aging and failing health, but aging and failing health in a modern society where even the most tight-knit families tend to live apart, and ailments are suffered in solitude and silence. Such content is difficult, but important and rewarding - and realized with a warm, gentle, yet unwavering vision. That vision includes rather ingenious use of the split-screen presentation that Noé previously employed in 'Lux Aeterna'; I was mostly unimpressed with the novelty in that instance, as it needlessly amplified the chaotic feel of the movie, but here I think it's rendered with far more conscientiousness that enhances the storytelling. At the same time that the dual perspective theoretically expands our perception of the course of events, it nonetheless serves to emphasize the smallness of Elle and Lui's world - and the loneliness of their experiences, even when they're side by side - and furthers the sense of enclosure and claustrophobia (even in those few instances when a scene takes place outdoors) that's chiefly fostered by the superb choice of medium format for the framing. Rarely has the particular technical craft of a film been so important to the narrative it communicates, and rarely have these elements been blended so smoothly. The result here is simply brilliant.
I've been waiting and hoping for Noé to prove himself to me, to give me a movie that unremittingly demonstrates his capabilities as a writer and director. Up til now the nearest I think he came to accomplishing that was with 2018's 'Climax,' yet even for as smart and sharp as it was in most every way, still it was uneven and imperfect. Finally, with 'Vortex,' Noé illustrates untarnished mastery of the medium that deserves far more recognition, to the point that I'm aghast this hasn't gotten more attention. The story that unfolds is dreadfully real, and quietly spellbinding, but for all that, perfect. Argento, Lebrun, and Lutz give performances of a lifetime. The direction, cinematography, and editing, and all other aspects of the work behind the scenes, are exquisite and flawless. It's tremendously impactful in the best and worst of ways, unflaggingly intelligent and soulful at every turn. Whatever one thinks of Noé otherwise - I'm the first to admit that I've been less than kind in my assessment elsewhere - this is the movie that he was born to make. This is the movie we've been waiting for him to make. By the nature of the content I can understand how this won't appeal to all, and it's a pointedly uncomfortable view. It is also, however, absolutely extraordinary, a marvelous credit to all involved, and frankly an outright must-see. However you need to go about finding it, 'Vortex' is exceptional, and earns my highest recommendation and most sincere gratitude.
Devastating.
garethcrook4 January 2023
Gaspar Noé doesn't do light hearted. I'm preparing to strap in and have my senses bludgeoned. I mean we start with a slate that states 'To all those whose brains will decompose before their hearts'. This isn't an assault though. It's stark. Shot on something digital, but framed in 4:3. Elle (Françoise Lebrun) and Lui (Dario Argento) are an old couple, who drift apart, literally into their own split screen frames. It's inventive, making the screen feel as claustrophobic as their Parisian apartment. They're often doing different things as they go about the days, meaning the viewer has a lot to take in. I suspect you could watch this a few times and see something slightly different each time. Lui is fearful of the city and fearful that Elle's onset dementia is going to get her into trouble. Really though, he just wants to get on with writing his book. For all the mundanity, there's a lot going on. Elle's face alone conveys a magnitude of emotion with barely a word spoken. She's aimless and restless. Lui doesn't see this. He has focus and people to engage with. A visit from their son Stéphane (Alex Lutz) though reveals how lost Elle is. It's heartbreaking. For Stéphane, for Elle and for Lui who's ill prepared and frustrated. Elle struggles with the clutter and feels the need to clean and tidy. Organise her home, to help her mind. Lui though embraces it, feels he needs it to fuel his thoughts as they continue to drift apart. Choices are to be made, of how they see their lives and what it looks like going forward, before life makes their choices for them. The fly on the wall feel puts you right at the heart of all this intimacy unravelling and it's quite hard to watch. Like we're intruding. It's wonderful though. I've struggled with some Noé films in the past, but this is brilliant. Devastating, but brilliant. I'd go so far to say it's his best film yet. It does that thing of drawing you in, investing in its characters as a piece of film, but also feeling important. Art capturing life to a degree that you hope it reaches as wide an audience as possible. Many of Noé's films have been pretty brutal, but this really does hit hard.
A too long dementia
AvionPrince1621 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I jut finished the movie and the first thing that i want to tell its i really feel that the movie was too long. Some scenes really feel too much in the "mise en scene" and didnt feel natural and i dont want to be mean but Dario Argento when he talks french take time and he is not really understandable with that accent. But i appreciate it anyway
The idea of the split screen was great and im not gonna lie i really love when they switch places on the split screen when they are face to face. I dont really know how i have been so patient to watch it for 2 hours. The dementia come slowly and the drugs will accentuate that but the mother seem a little bit paranoid and her actions was a little bit confuse (when she throw all the things on Dario Argento's desk). I have hard time also with the performance oh Alex Lutz: he did the job. And trough him we can see the couple and their perceptions of each other. So the husband died because i guess of the pills or something like that and we have also the woman who will die. It was kind of strange and i really think they forced the narration and the mise en scene: i didnt feel myself get into the movie because of some diaogues or some scenes. Dario Argento really struggle with the language and i really felt that i Was in a behind the scenes. Im kind of disappointed even if i really like that they played it naturally in some point (when she got lost at the beginning and stuff like this) but it was too long.
The revelation that make me surprised of the movie was the son and the fact that he was a drug dealer (kind of unexpected). But except that, its just a couple who slowly turn into dementia. Its kind of repetitive sometimes and the dialogues too but if you can watch it and be patient, i think the movie is still interesting visually mostly with the split screen and i really was curious about how they will translate dementia into the screen and i think it was great for that but way too long!
The idea of the split screen was great and im not gonna lie i really love when they switch places on the split screen when they are face to face. I dont really know how i have been so patient to watch it for 2 hours. The dementia come slowly and the drugs will accentuate that but the mother seem a little bit paranoid and her actions was a little bit confuse (when she throw all the things on Dario Argento's desk). I have hard time also with the performance oh Alex Lutz: he did the job. And trough him we can see the couple and their perceptions of each other. So the husband died because i guess of the pills or something like that and we have also the woman who will die. It was kind of strange and i really think they forced the narration and the mise en scene: i didnt feel myself get into the movie because of some diaogues or some scenes. Dario Argento really struggle with the language and i really felt that i Was in a behind the scenes. Im kind of disappointed even if i really like that they played it naturally in some point (when she got lost at the beginning and stuff like this) but it was too long.
The revelation that make me surprised of the movie was the son and the fact that he was a drug dealer (kind of unexpected). But except that, its just a couple who slowly turn into dementia. Its kind of repetitive sometimes and the dialogues too but if you can watch it and be patient, i think the movie is still interesting visually mostly with the split screen and i really was curious about how they will translate dementia into the screen and i think it was great for that but way too long!
A Must See
H1DEK123 May 2022
An amazing experience. A movie which is full of emotinal intensity. Gaspar Noe tells a heartbreaking story with a very original and clever style. Definitely worth a watch. Some viewer may have hard time to get in the movie. But it kept me interested all the way from beginning to end. I can already sense that it will become a cult movie.
Dementia is destructive
SoumikBanerjee199629 June 2023
This was probably one of the saddest movies I have ever seen! And the tragedy is the things discussed down here could happen to anybody. They could happen to any of us.
Dementia is perhaps the meanest of all diseases, as it not only enslaves our conscience and destroys the very fabric of our existence, but it also takes away our precious memories. The same memories shape who we are and what we mean and leave us begging for mercy or, worse, for death!
Gaspar Noé did a great job symbolising the constant anxiety and bewilderment affecting these helpless victims through an array of uneventful, disorganised sequences and by showcasing the narrative gradually unfolding in a split screen POV, Noé permitted us, the audience, to sneak into each character's individual headspaces.
This unique but unusual perspective introduces a distinctive viewpoint from where we could witness bits and pieces of their lives, from their petty struggles to their substantial miseries! That, in return, culminated in a feature that feels highly personal and thoroughly immersive.
Dementia is perhaps the meanest of all diseases, as it not only enslaves our conscience and destroys the very fabric of our existence, but it also takes away our precious memories. The same memories shape who we are and what we mean and leave us begging for mercy or, worse, for death!
Gaspar Noé did a great job symbolising the constant anxiety and bewilderment affecting these helpless victims through an array of uneventful, disorganised sequences and by showcasing the narrative gradually unfolding in a split screen POV, Noé permitted us, the audience, to sneak into each character's individual headspaces.
This unique but unusual perspective introduces a distinctive viewpoint from where we could witness bits and pieces of their lives, from their petty struggles to their substantial miseries! That, in return, culminated in a feature that feels highly personal and thoroughly immersive.
A different film
alexhein-0390317 July 2021
Not just a film about dementia
lechmich-189822 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
While I was depressed by this film, which I guess was its intent, It was very insightful and at times uplifting. It was very predictable to see the frustration build in the husband of the wife with dementia. Somewhat weird to see that the woman who was one a psychiatrist has not been deregistered when she ceased to practice. How she is still prescribing herself pills under the knowledge of her family is kind of a strange and really out of place item in this film that really doesn't fit...
I couldn't work out whether she was poisoning her husband or not - the cocktail she made for him - it was not clear whether nor not he ever took it or not, but having a demented prescriber in the house was always going to be a very dangerous situation...
The fact the husband didn't have a medic alert disturbed me too, he was relying on a dementia patient for his wellbeing - a hypertensive smoker in poor health. I felt sorry for him.
I couldn't work out whether she was poisoning her husband or not - the cocktail she made for him - it was not clear whether nor not he ever took it or not, but having a demented prescriber in the house was always going to be a very dangerous situation...
The fact the husband didn't have a medic alert disturbed me too, he was relying on a dementia patient for his wellbeing - a hypertensive smoker in poor health. I felt sorry for him.
Noé strikes with another disturbance, this time mixed with inevitability and despair.
hakaneray12 February 2023
Vortex is about a crucial element of life, an element which is just certain as being born if there is life at least for us humans in the year of 2023, ageing its wing man death. While watching Vortex i felt helpless, that i cannot runaway from the inevitable, sooner or later i will have to face it, i wanted to hug my own mother and even though i do not like the concept of thankfulness, i have felt thankful for the conditions of my senior relatives. However, Vortex is not a pessimistic or a depressing movie, also it does not aim to inject the idea of thankfulness to its viewers. It simply demonstrates ending part of the cycle of life within a small French family.
Interesting in places, but far too long
scaryjase-0616123 March 2023
Well, bizarrely it starts with the full credits for the film - it takes you 2.5 minutes before you get to see anything approaching acting and then we have approximately one minute of film in a small window in the middle of the screen featuring an old couple in their flat. And then we have two mins of what looks like a 60s French pop star singing a song - and then things start to get weird...
We cut to the couple in bed, but what you don't realise until the wife gets up is that it's a split screen - one side follows her pottering about the flat while the other half stays on him in bed. At some point he gets up as well and the other side follows him - until they pass each other, at which point they swap sides! And it's fair to say the beginning of the film isn't heavy on either action or dialogue - the first 15 minutes features just one word.
And whilst the film does ramp up the dialogue as we go along, it doesn't exactly get action filled. I appreciate it's supposed to be a thoughtful study of the effects of dementia, but maybe it's not such a good thing to spend so much time with your thoughts. We basically plod along following the couple as she descends into an ever more confused state. At times, we mix things up and follow their son for a bit - but for most of the time we focus on the pair of them. And there are undoubtedly some very well observed scenes - it's obviously a very difficult situation for all involved and the dialogue comes across as quite believable, so I'm sure this film speaks volumes to those that have been through or are in the middle of such a situation. But...
...for vast swathes of this film nothing is happening on at least one of the split screens - at times you're desperately focus switching between the two of them trying to find something worth watching. And at other times, nothing at all is showing on one of the screens, which is a most peculiar effect. I started playing it at double speed when I was 40 minutes into it (and even that felt like I'd been very generous with it!) - I just couldn't face another 100 minutes of nothing happening. There were actually times with no dialogue and such little or slow motion that I wasn't actually sure I was watching it at double speed. It's also hard to tell how long a time period the film covers - a lot of it is filmed in very long takes, but there are obviously cuts between scenes, but no clue is given as to whether minutes, hours, days or weeks have passed.
To its credit though, it does have a beginning, a middle and an end - there is a story there to tell and it does tell it. Just very, very slowly. The acting is actually pretty good - particularly from Françoise Lebrun (at the tender age of 78) as Elle (her). You really believe her progression throughout the film - at times she has to act very confused for very long periods and it's an impressive performance. Dario Argento as Lui (him) also does a fine job in his first leading role (at the much more advanced age of 82), which is not in his native language either. Alex Lutz as their son, Stephane also does a good job of conveying his concerns for them whilst also obviously having his own difficulties to deal with.
It's undoubtedly an interesting film stylistically (not just because of the split-screen shenanigans) and it also gives the impression it wasn't an easy film to shoot - the apartment isn't tiny, but it's very cluttered and plenty of scenes were shot from two angles. One thing that I did find annoying is the use of a weird pause used to cut between scenes - the screen blacks out for just slightly longer than you expect, like it's a slow blink. It's also intriguing to note that it's a very different kind of endurance test to Gaspar Noé's earlier stuff (his Wikipedia page is "interesting') - the brain haemorrhage that nearly killed him in 2020 may have caused him to re-evaluate his style.
All in all, there's a lot to admire about this film but there is unfortunately also an awful lot with minimal content - twice over! I appreciate Gaspar has a reputation to uphold in terms of making his films not exactly enjoyable but if this had been cut down to a tight 90-100 minutes then it would have been, for me, a much more intriguing offering. If you like your arthouse cinema to be tediously intriguing, then this will be right up your street but I suspect most people will be perfectly happy to give it a miss.
We cut to the couple in bed, but what you don't realise until the wife gets up is that it's a split screen - one side follows her pottering about the flat while the other half stays on him in bed. At some point he gets up as well and the other side follows him - until they pass each other, at which point they swap sides! And it's fair to say the beginning of the film isn't heavy on either action or dialogue - the first 15 minutes features just one word.
And whilst the film does ramp up the dialogue as we go along, it doesn't exactly get action filled. I appreciate it's supposed to be a thoughtful study of the effects of dementia, but maybe it's not such a good thing to spend so much time with your thoughts. We basically plod along following the couple as she descends into an ever more confused state. At times, we mix things up and follow their son for a bit - but for most of the time we focus on the pair of them. And there are undoubtedly some very well observed scenes - it's obviously a very difficult situation for all involved and the dialogue comes across as quite believable, so I'm sure this film speaks volumes to those that have been through or are in the middle of such a situation. But...
...for vast swathes of this film nothing is happening on at least one of the split screens - at times you're desperately focus switching between the two of them trying to find something worth watching. And at other times, nothing at all is showing on one of the screens, which is a most peculiar effect. I started playing it at double speed when I was 40 minutes into it (and even that felt like I'd been very generous with it!) - I just couldn't face another 100 minutes of nothing happening. There were actually times with no dialogue and such little or slow motion that I wasn't actually sure I was watching it at double speed. It's also hard to tell how long a time period the film covers - a lot of it is filmed in very long takes, but there are obviously cuts between scenes, but no clue is given as to whether minutes, hours, days or weeks have passed.
To its credit though, it does have a beginning, a middle and an end - there is a story there to tell and it does tell it. Just very, very slowly. The acting is actually pretty good - particularly from Françoise Lebrun (at the tender age of 78) as Elle (her). You really believe her progression throughout the film - at times she has to act very confused for very long periods and it's an impressive performance. Dario Argento as Lui (him) also does a fine job in his first leading role (at the much more advanced age of 82), which is not in his native language either. Alex Lutz as their son, Stephane also does a good job of conveying his concerns for them whilst also obviously having his own difficulties to deal with.
It's undoubtedly an interesting film stylistically (not just because of the split-screen shenanigans) and it also gives the impression it wasn't an easy film to shoot - the apartment isn't tiny, but it's very cluttered and plenty of scenes were shot from two angles. One thing that I did find annoying is the use of a weird pause used to cut between scenes - the screen blacks out for just slightly longer than you expect, like it's a slow blink. It's also intriguing to note that it's a very different kind of endurance test to Gaspar Noé's earlier stuff (his Wikipedia page is "interesting') - the brain haemorrhage that nearly killed him in 2020 may have caused him to re-evaluate his style.
All in all, there's a lot to admire about this film but there is unfortunately also an awful lot with minimal content - twice over! I appreciate Gaspar has a reputation to uphold in terms of making his films not exactly enjoyable but if this had been cut down to a tight 90-100 minutes then it would have been, for me, a much more intriguing offering. If you like your arthouse cinema to be tediously intriguing, then this will be right up your street but I suspect most people will be perfectly happy to give it a miss.
A Masterpiece o a new Gaspar Noé
lucianopolimi12 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
"Vortex" is a captivating and thought-provoking movie directed by Gaspar Noé. The film follows the story of an elderly couple, played by Françoise Lebrun and Dario Argento, as they face the challenges of aging, illness, and mortality. The movie is shot in black and white, which adds to its somber and melancholic tone.
The movie has some similarities to "Amour" by Michael Haneke, which also deals with the theme of aging and mortality. However, Noé's film has its unique style and approach to the subject matter. The movie is slow-paced and contemplative, allowing the audience to immerse themselves in the characters' emotions and experiences.
One surprising aspect of "Vortex" is how it departs from Noé's nihilistic approach to filmmaking. The movie has a sense of hope and spirituality that is not present in his previous works. The ending, which features a Christian prayer, is a significant departure from Noé's usual themes and style.
It is worth noting that Noé himself faced a critical health situation during the making of the film. He was hospitalized with a heart condition, which delayed the production. This personal experience may have influenced the film's themes and tone, as it deals with mortality and the fragility of life.
Overall, "Vortex" is a haunting and powerful film that showcases Noé's versatility as a filmmaker. It is a must-watch for those who appreciate slow-burning dramas that explore the human condition.
The movie has some similarities to "Amour" by Michael Haneke, which also deals with the theme of aging and mortality. However, Noé's film has its unique style and approach to the subject matter. The movie is slow-paced and contemplative, allowing the audience to immerse themselves in the characters' emotions and experiences.
One surprising aspect of "Vortex" is how it departs from Noé's nihilistic approach to filmmaking. The movie has a sense of hope and spirituality that is not present in his previous works. The ending, which features a Christian prayer, is a significant departure from Noé's usual themes and style.
It is worth noting that Noé himself faced a critical health situation during the making of the film. He was hospitalized with a heart condition, which delayed the production. This personal experience may have influenced the film's themes and tone, as it deals with mortality and the fragility of life.
Overall, "Vortex" is a haunting and powerful film that showcases Noé's versatility as a filmmaker. It is a must-watch for those who appreciate slow-burning dramas that explore the human condition.
Beautifully Devestating...
cruelworldfilms8 July 2022
The title says it all really. It's a bit slow paced, but that's what makes "Vortex" such a heartbreaking, meditative take on the frailty of life and the cruelty of mortality. Inevitable, but shocking when it hits.
Gaspar Noe is a genius.
Gaspar Noe is a genius.
Truly amazing, but a bit too long.
hannabtr23 September 2022
Unlike Noés other films, Vortex was not filled with visually disturbing scenes. It was a raw portrayal of life, or the end of life. Françoise Lebrun portrayed dementia incredibly well. She made a truly believable performance, and I've worked with people with dementia. She really captured that empty-eyed look. The other actors did really well too. It was long, and maybe a bit too long, but it was still an amazing movie. He could have cut some scenes shorter, but overall this was truly amazing. I've seen most of his other films, and this is the best one in my opinion. The split screen was brilliant, and it might sound like it makes it hard to watch, but the film is very slow and there is not much that's actually happening, so it's not a problem. The film is not for everyone, it's slow and it's set in same apartment for more than half of the the whole 2 hours and 22 minutes. But it's a really great film, and If you can watch slow movies I would absolutely recommend it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
