Copied pasted some comments on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.fr/product-reviews/B0 ... ewpoints=1
I'm not the only one to compare to Kubrick it looks like!
ps: the originality of the cinematographic concept reminds
https://www.econologie.com/forums/thomas-est ... t4059.html but much more!
Gaspar has laid his 2001., 6 December 2010
A visual poem, beautiful, violent, colorful, vibrant, organic. A unique cinematic experience, far from guns and formatting. A film that recalls that cinema is also the seventh art, by his exploration of the medium and its aesthetic and narrative biases, this work of Gaspar Noé deserves respect. No doubt ahead of its time by its extreme contemporaneity, it will still divide for a few years I guess, before being rightly recognized for its qualities and audacity.
Here the output!, 10 October 2010
Eight years after the release of Irreversible, here is the new movie of Noah, which was expected hot as embers. The pitch, here it is, my sweet friends: Oscar lives in Tokyo. Faithful to the promise he made him a child, he arranged for his sister Linda to join him. Junkie, Oscar starts selling drugs to survive while his sister quickly becomes a stripper in a nightclub. One night, Oscar was trading in the bar Le Void and was hit by a bullet. As he dies, his mind breaks away from his body and goes through the stages of death described in the Buddhist religion.
The film is nil. We leave this film, exhausted and annoyed by the demonstration. Where one would like there to be a little more than a proposition of cinema, one finds only a long tunnel leading to an unfathomable and vaguely pretentious nothingness. End of the chronicle.
But here it is: we will always be grateful to Gaspar Noé for trying to do something else in French cinema than the next film about two single-parent families who meet up for a long weekend at Ile de Ré (nice film category) or to give us back the eternal therapeutic by-product so that we manage to normalize ourselves to return to work on Monday by saying "I'm fine, don't worry" when we just want to pass the service commercial machine gun (Prozac film, variant "I found you a little palôt this morning").
We will be grateful to Gaspar Noé for "taking risks", an infinite phrase absolutely banned from any young director who claims to be in advance on receipt. The last is Grandrieux. Noah survived. For now, Grandrieux is missing (hello! Chuck Norris!). Noah, although he gives the impression of sticking to the time, actually makes ageless films, as Murnau did or as in fact Bela Tarr still. Noé is an extraordinary "ambianceur" and his failures are ten times more interesting than the dismal prose of an Assayas.
For this reason, we will return to see the next Noah.
For the same reason, we will wait until the next Assayas passes on TF1.
And as I said above: either we love, or a hate, here are 2 (very) negative:
A boring amusement park, 4 December 2010
The "New Noah" is a frank disappointment (but has he ever delighted us since "Alone Against All"?). As the Red Baron says, a long, colorful, strobe 150-minute tunnel awaits you. You have been warned. Gaspard refusing again and again to write a screenplay of more than three lines exploring themes other than sex and death, so we should not expect much from that side: Oscar and his sister live in Tokyo, him survives small drug deals as a stripper in a nightclub. Denounced by one of his friends whose mother he fucked, he is very arbitrarily shot by the Tokyo police in the toilets of a bar. His soul is detached from his body, the wandering through time and space can begin.
Roughly, it stops there.
Inspired by the Tibetan Book of the Dead, Noah films this long wandering by twirling his camera all over Tokyo in the shape of a psychedelic amusement park. Nothing very new, so several scenes seem to have escaped from the rushes of Irreversible. Without provocation or shock scenes, Noé seems speechless, his camera is his only language, but that's not enough, all becoming an excuse to display interminably his exercise style as impressive aesthetically as empty thematically. The title of the work then becomes more justified. The scenes of fuck are too many, we even end up wondering if the wandering soul of the deceased would not take advantage of his pastimes (his wall-pass, roughly) to satisfy a compulsive voyeurism. And then it goes in circles, between repetitions and convolutions, Noah confirming moreover a very poor director of actors (we remember in particular the grotesque performance of Dupontel in Irreversible).
The film, however, retains a didactic interest. The camera is all-purpose documentary efficiency and can serve as a course support for apprentice plumbers or students in biology attacking the chapter fertilization ... other than that, not much to put in their mouths.
The technical prowess does not necessarily make a good movie !, 5 December 2010
A real joke about this title that seems to divide the masses and seems to be praised by a majority of professionals. Watching this film, I consider I have lost my time, the time we miss and that is so precious; I'm not a junkie and I did not have any pleasure watching Mr. Noé's deliriums: psychedelic scenes at length, color games, subjective or astral visions, endless and whimsical love scenes that do not serve in no case history as it is on the edge of a metro ticket ... so imagine staying two hours forty in front of this show without there being the shadow of a plot that can keep you going! So yes, the technical aspect is a feat ... subjective vision and astral vision are terribly well treated but it turns to the obsessional to the point of becoming the limit of the bearable. It's endless. What a pleasure to see the end! Mr. Noah could have treated the subject in 45 minutes or made a short film. The trip would have been much more impactful! There is nevertheless considerable work behind this work which remains a true technical feat, but is it enough to make a good film? To book aficionados of Gaspard Noé or people looking for a bad trip, do not forget the little pill before you embark on the journey!
)
