A man afflicted with a disease that makes him want to kill and eat people (I'm a "brass tacks" reviewer, so there it is) during intercourse (Gallo) and his wife are headed to Paris on their honeymoon. Meanwhile, somewhere in Paris, another man covers up some ghastly murders his wife (Dalle) commits, due to having the same disease. Gallo's condition is deteriorating. Some other things happen, slowly, that neither the director nor the audience care about, in order to set up the eventual meeting of Gallo and Dalle. Things get ugly right around there.
The first scene is haunting and reminds me of the best kind of horror, like Let The Right One In (Swedish version), creepy with what is left unsaid, the damage done by unstoppable carnal need and the lengths a husband will go through to cover up for his wife. I began loving this film.
Sadly, though, I didn't feel that way by the film's end. Much of it had to do with Gallo's flat performance, which may be due to the direction or to his lack of actorly ability. Either way it fails in every way when the guy speaks. Particularly bad were the attempts at a back story, which should have just been left out of the film altogether. If you're going to make an arty character study in the horror genre, just do it. Don't throw in awful scenes just to make the film partially coherent, don't CYA, don't bore me with Vincent Gallo attempting to read dialogue. It's just bad, unnecessary, and takes away from any good the film does eventually deliver.
That said, there were excellent moments in this film. The scenes with the chambermaid I found to be brilliantly done. We're proved again and again the pliability and vulnerability of human flesh. From the way the camera stares down at the back of her neck as she pushes her cart around, to the way she washes her feet after her long shift. This does really establish a sense of empathy for the victim that is essential (at least for me) to actually being horrified. Denis knows how to create an atmosphere, and capture a feeling stylistically, I'll give her that.
Dalle is breathtaking as a woman who is closeted away by her fearful but devoted husband. She shows remorse, but also seems resentful of his attempts to protect her, in one scene ripping up the entire household in an attempt to break out and kill again. He buries the bodies of her victims and then lovingly sponges away the blood from her body. Such an interesting relationship should have spent more time on screen than anything with Gallo having his "headaches."
I think this film would have been quite good had the back story just been absent. Does knowing why the afflicted have the disease really add to the meaning and metaphor attempting to be conveyed here? Not at all for me. Everything about the plot seems to be created, and by created I mean thrown in thoughtlessly, in order to have the meeting between Gallo's character and the one played by Dalle. Which ends, given the synopsis I read before seeing the movie, in a somewhat disappointing and far-from-climactic way.
Finally we have the couple of scenes that everyone mentions, and let's face it, these scenes are why this movie exists at all. Everything else seems to serve as a vehicle for the long and drawn out disgust-a-thon of eating someone alive whilst having sex. Now, I'm not sitting here aghast at the tastelessness of Denis for including this in her film. I'm a fan of Noe's Irreversible for it's incredibly stark and real depiction of rape in the sickest sense, because it is sick. But there's something about these scenes that is a little too shallow. The director is obviously messing with our heads, but can't quite pull it off. The scene with Dalle is perverse, but hauntingly so, and the scene with Gallo starts off, surprisingly, actually somewhat erotically. However I just can't be convinced these weren't done at least in part in the spirit just to satisfy the weird competitiveness people have for seeing the depths of depravity and/or having the "courage" to face it in their films. Something about these scenes, from at least a directorial point of view, is just less-than-genuine. Sorry, Ms. Denis, but I'm not convinced.
The first scene is haunting and reminds me of the best kind of horror, like Let The Right One In (Swedish version), creepy with what is left unsaid, the damage done by unstoppable carnal need and the lengths a husband will go through to cover up for his wife. I began loving this film.
Sadly, though, I didn't feel that way by the film's end. Much of it had to do with Gallo's flat performance, which may be due to the direction or to his lack of actorly ability. Either way it fails in every way when the guy speaks. Particularly bad were the attempts at a back story, which should have just been left out of the film altogether. If you're going to make an arty character study in the horror genre, just do it. Don't throw in awful scenes just to make the film partially coherent, don't CYA, don't bore me with Vincent Gallo attempting to read dialogue. It's just bad, unnecessary, and takes away from any good the film does eventually deliver.
That said, there were excellent moments in this film. The scenes with the chambermaid I found to be brilliantly done. We're proved again and again the pliability and vulnerability of human flesh. From the way the camera stares down at the back of her neck as she pushes her cart around, to the way she washes her feet after her long shift. This does really establish a sense of empathy for the victim that is essential (at least for me) to actually being horrified. Denis knows how to create an atmosphere, and capture a feeling stylistically, I'll give her that.
Dalle is breathtaking as a woman who is closeted away by her fearful but devoted husband. She shows remorse, but also seems resentful of his attempts to protect her, in one scene ripping up the entire household in an attempt to break out and kill again. He buries the bodies of her victims and then lovingly sponges away the blood from her body. Such an interesting relationship should have spent more time on screen than anything with Gallo having his "headaches."
I think this film would have been quite good had the back story just been absent. Does knowing why the afflicted have the disease really add to the meaning and metaphor attempting to be conveyed here? Not at all for me. Everything about the plot seems to be created, and by created I mean thrown in thoughtlessly, in order to have the meeting between Gallo's character and the one played by Dalle. Which ends, given the synopsis I read before seeing the movie, in a somewhat disappointing and far-from-climactic way.
Finally we have the couple of scenes that everyone mentions, and let's face it, these scenes are why this movie exists at all. Everything else seems to serve as a vehicle for the long and drawn out disgust-a-thon of eating someone alive whilst having sex. Now, I'm not sitting here aghast at the tastelessness of Denis for including this in her film. I'm a fan of Noe's Irreversible for it's incredibly stark and real depiction of rape in the sickest sense, because it is sick. But there's something about these scenes that is a little too shallow. The director is obviously messing with our heads, but can't quite pull it off. The scene with Dalle is perverse, but hauntingly so, and the scene with Gallo starts off, surprisingly, actually somewhat erotically. However I just can't be convinced these weren't done at least in part in the spirit just to satisfy the weird competitiveness people have for seeing the depths of depravity and/or having the "courage" to face it in their films. Something about these scenes, from at least a directorial point of view, is just less-than-genuine. Sorry, Ms. Denis, but I'm not convinced.