I don’t like musicals, so I didn’t really dig this either. Seems some kind of weird Sound of Music parody to me. In the end: 5/10. Miike made worse, but also way better ones.
Irreversible - Had this sitting there for a while but never got around to putting it on, what a vile film, good though.
Alpha Papa - Just as you’d expect from Partridge, I enjoyed this, thought it was pretty funny, I prefer the programmes though.
St.Ives - Not seen it for years, enjoyable enough easy going Bronson.
Irreversible
I did not like it that much after first viewing it, but it began to stuck in my head, and I think now that it is indeed one of the best films of the 2000s. The extremely intensive stuff cinema is made for.
The stylish trailer: - YouTube
The first shot of the trailer is the beginning of the last scene of the film, and is some kind of happy end, if it weren’t the chronologically last scene of this disturbing film.
(and is the only scene which uses this part of Ludwig van’s 7th, which is the most suitable for films of all the Ludwig van stuff)
Irreversible is utter shite. Abominable, lazy filmmaking purely relying on shock value. The rape went on and on. What at first is, indeed, shocking becomes boring. Overall it’s shit using the Memento approach, but without its cleverness. Noe is an overrated director. Not surprisingly he loves Salo, which is also (literally) a crapfest. His Seul contre tous is better, but that film also suffers from a lack of ideas and becomes a bore after a while as well.
Never seen a Noé film and I’m in no hurry to rectify the situation.
I’ve already heard of Noe, but I’ve got so much other stuff to watch that it’s impossible for me to catch up with all of those contemporary filmmakers. Well, maybe one day…
“Escape From Alcatraz” and “Thunderbolt & Lightfoot” - movies where Eastwood was directed by someone else…for some reason I like his acting more in those cases, not there’s any great difference, but he seems to avoid those little habits/glances he has that he tends to let himself do in most films he directs…“Unforgiven” being an exception (there’s are a few more).
Midnight Cowboy (1969) - 8/10 - It was much better than I had expected, a very good one. Both lead actors are amazing.
Medea (1969) - 4/10 - The myth concerning Medea only constitutes a guise for Pasolini to embark on a streak of poetic takes which do not underpin in the slightest the dissipated plot. Apart from the visually enchanting aspect of this opus, everything else is flimsy, nebulous and ultimately sleep-inducing. The worst Pasolini movie ever, it was almost a torture to sit through this absurdly inert flick.
Umberto D. (1952) - 9/10 - Another classic from the great Vittorio De Sica, decidedly on par with Bicycle Thieves and Miracle in Milan.
The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey (2012) - 7/10 - A pleasant surprise, that was a quite good one. I consent that it has too many dwarfs - far too many. Once there are no motifs to unfurl in the possibly most elaborate manner (I mean everything is so detailed - something like this works in a book, not in a movie), the director resorts to using scenes featuring singing, belching, rowdy dwarfs. In Lord of the Rings, the element felt far more pertinent than in the case of Hobbit, probably because it was exploited reasonably. Notwithstanding, the film provided me with loads of fun. I’m looking forward to the next two parts. I guess the flick would be better off divided into two parts though, the ubiquitous feeling of supersaturation is compelling.
Noe is the opposite of a lazy director, and Irreversible is a visually stunning film. Every time segment is made in one shot, and these are very, very long shots, and extremely complicated ones. Impossible to do without (then) modern computer technology.
The shock value is of minor importance, what counts is the inner beauty of the film.
For me it was the other way round. It was initially a bit boring, and became fascinating on a second watch. Now I would call it an entertainment classic. 
The backwards telling is of course similar to Memento, but Irreversible is the better and stronger and more satisfying film. Btw I like Memento, which is Nolan’s best film (9/10). But Irreversible is the real masterpiece. 11/10
One shot. That just means putting the camera on a tripod. He probably went for a coffee as this rape scene went on for 10 minutes.
For me there is nothing remarkable about the thing. Only the acting was ok.
LOL 
I guess I’ll give it a shot just out of pure curiosity.
In fact there are more or less impossible camera movements for such long scenes. I didn’t realised that there were so few cuts as I watched it the first time cause the camera is always moving. Long shots, close-ups, spinning around the own axis, crane shots, everything you can imagine. From a mere technical point of view this must have been one of the most tricky films to do. Even if maybe the computer helped to sometimes to do it, but I don’t know.
(Actually I have to check if really there is only one shot per time segment, but I think it is)
Thematically the film goes from hell to paradise while for the film’s characters through the backwards narrative it is the reversed way. Redemption for the film, punishment for the characters.
Led by this great motto: time destroys everything
Well, you can call the film pretentious rubbish or boring or whatever, but it surely isn’t a lazy film. It’s a demanding and complex film, probably not one easy to like, but one which has the potential to fascinate.
Even if maybe the computer helped to sometimes to do it, but I don't know.I remember there are few shots like camera moving from outside to inside of a car which would be impossible to do without computer tricks.
It’s interesting to note that Noe uses very long-takes to tell the story, something that has always fascinated directors, from Ophuls to Welles to Cuarón. Many directors view it as an example of pure cinema, but I think intelligent editing and montage can equally as useful and stimulating tool to propel the narrative. I’m reminded of Martin Scorsese in the book Scorsese on Scorsese saying how he feels a tension between his love for both of them. Incidentally, while long takes seem to have always been popular with filmmakers, stretching right back into the silent era, very sophisticated and complex editing seems to rise and descend, from Eisenstein to a small Golden Age in the nineties, with JFK, GoodFellas, Casino, Boogie Nights and a select few others.
[quote=“Mickey13, post:10668, topic:1923”]Umberto D. (1952) - 9/10 - Another classic from the great Vittorio De Sica, decidedly on par with Bicycle Thieves and Miracle in Milan.
[[/quote]
A great one!
Of course, both can be fascinating. Depends on the film. On what the film needs. What the director feels more comfortable with.
I have to agree with Stanton on this one. Noe is the opposite of a lazy director in my view, Irreversible its a very hard working film for everyone, actors director and viewers, demanding I would say. I would’t rate Irreversible so hight, a 4 out 5 to me, it’s a bit unbalanced to be a top masterpiece. Its strange but the films does not suffer from that annoyng “intelectual” feeling (meaning boring as hell), so common in other French directors that try to shock the viewers
I haven’t seen the other Noe film I Stand Alone.
Noe has made a third one meanwhile. Enter the Void. Also demanding to say the least.
Enter the Void is visually great film but it’s all meaningless shit. Best I’ve seen from Noe is the short film Sodomites.