Critics’ reviews

Irreversible (2002)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 57: 4 positive, 2 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of Irreversible

57
Positive
4
Mixed
2
Negative
2

The reviews are sharply divided, with praise outnumbering outright rejection but little agreement on what the film achieves. Favourable reviews find its distressing material emotionally forceful and thought-provoking, with praise clustering around Noé’s camerawork, the reverse chronology and the performances of Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel. Bellucci receives particular attention for her responses to both danger and happiness. Even admirers describe the violence as difficult, sometimes nearly impossible, to watch.

The disagreement concerns whether that ordeal serves a purpose. The Guardian finds the violence squalid and the reversed chronology less effective than earlier examples; the Los Angeles Times regards the film as exploitative shock cinema, objecting especially to the prolonged, voyeuristic depiction of rape. These are substantial objections to choices that supporters find meaningful, rather than minor reservations. The available excerpts from two further reviews offer no clear verdict, limiting what can be said about the middle ground.

Radio Times
★★★★ · Sloan Freer
80

The critic describes the film as an intense, haunting nightmare that is difficult to watch but hard to forget. They praise Vincent Cassel and Monica Bellucci for their powerful performances.

Read the full review →
Variety
24 May 2002 · festival review · Lisa Nesselson
78*

Nesselson finds the film demanding but rewarding, calling it an emotionally devastating work of art. She especially praises Noé’s controlled, fluid camerawork and the performances, singling out Bellucci’s responses to peril and joy.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Alan Morrison
75*

The review calls the film distressing but important and thought-provoking. It praises the reverse structure as meaningful social art.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
29 May 2002 · Sheila Johnston
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but its verdict is hidden behind the paywall. The visible text gives no praise or complaint.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· NB
64*

The available excerpt plunges the viewer into a violent, disorienting experience. It singles out the graphic violence and the film’s narrative reversal, but gives no clear verdict.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
3 February 2003 · Philip French
20*

French finds the film squalid and pretentious rather than an effective story of revenge. He objects particularly to its graphic violence and says its reverse chronology is less effective than earlier examples.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
7 March 2003 · Manohla Dargis
10*

Dargis condemns the film as exploitative, tedious shock cinema rather than meaningful formal experimentation. She singles out its prolonged, voyeuristic rape scene as especially objectionable.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
13 July 2002 · Angus Wolfe Murray
70*

The critic calls the film astonishing and ground-breaking, while condemning its extreme sexual violence as nearly unwatchable. They single out Noé’s reverse chronology and unsettling visual method for admiration.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate