Martyrs

I'll be picking this up ASAP. Probably at Wal-Mart. It just weirds me out that a store who sells only censored CDs and video game covers is THE absolute best store in my area in which to find horrifically gory movies at great prices. Hell, even if they aren't ridiculously graphic, indie horror flicks are easier to find (and cheaper) at Wal-Mart than anywhere else.

Inside? Got it at Wal-Mart.
Feast 2&3? Wal-Mart.
Frontier(s)? Wal-Mart.
The Burrowers? Wal-Mart.
Laid To Rest? Wal-Mart.
Them? Wal-Mart.
Rogue, Brotherhood of the Wolf (Director's Cut), The Signal, etc.? All at Wal-Mart for dirt cheap.

And they are usually between $9.99 and $14.99! Everywhere else (Borders, Barnes & Noble, FYE, Target, and the now defunct Circuit City) would sell these titles at $19.99 or higher. Only Best Buy is pretty decent about prices, but the closest one to me is almost an hour away.

Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed you if you told me that Wal-Mart would end up becoming my preferred in-store purchasing location for films. And on that note, off to WallyWorld I go!

Jesus, just watched it this afternoon - pretty easy to see why they brought the director on for the new Hellraiser reboot.

I'm still kind of reeling from the visceral beatings the film gave me, and I don't want to rave or condemn it til it's had a few days to stew, but probably leaning towards agreeing with you guys about the hollowness of the final series of events and how it ties back to the title. Wonder if this suffered from bad subtitling ala Let the Right One In or something..

It did come out on dvd up here last week or the week prior though.. at least to Blockbuster.

The French are doing all that they can to completely ruin horror films. I guess every country needs a collective hobby, right?

OK, let me preface this by saying, this is a really good film. I felt the first hour was excellence. Then it takes a left turn, which I felt was totally appropriate for the film, but nonetheless at that point I was less engaged.

Here's the thing, people are talking about this film as if it's this sort of life changing experience. I did not have that at all. People seem to be just blown away by what the film is saying, and by the big reveal of the ending. To me, once the reasoning behind everything was revealed, I more or less knew how the story was going to play out. Not that it was bad, but I'd been prepared for this big mindfuck ending, and really I was just like "Well yeah, that makes sense."

Jesus, I'm trying to avoid spoilers so that paragraph makes hardly any sense. Sorry.

Anyway, I have a theory that people who have been brought up with religion are the ones really affected by this. I was brought up without religion and am what one would call an agnostic, so to me the ending just seemed like common sense. Either way this is a really food film and worthy of discussion.

Hated it. Strong beginning, I give it that, but once the Hostel guys come in it goes terribly down south. Let me say I sat through Inside and while that was even more extreme in terms of violence, I was truly annoyed with the massive torture in the final act. Inside had strong characters and never let go to be thrilling, but I just stopped caring when the girl began cleaning the Grudge woman. The explaination of the whole thing was probably meant to be the eye opening huge reveal, but it really did nothing for me. Was just completely bored until the credits and not once impressed by all that martyrism.

I'd say it's definitely weaker than Ils, A la Interior, Haute Tension and Frontieres.

I liked it way better than FRONTIERS. I thought FRONTIERS was friggin' retarded.

Replace FRONTIERS with ILS and you have my thoughts.

At least we can all agree that INSIDE is good.

Fuck...this movie knocked me for a loop. I wouldn't say I enjoyed it more than Inside, Ils or even Frontiers (or that I enjoyed it at all), but I was certainly more horrified by Martyrs.

I get the criticisms being leveled against the flick. Even though you eventually believe Lucie, she's still a very hard character to sympathize with. The killing of the parents in the beginning of the film is kind of justified, but with the killing of the kids I think the filmmakers took Lucie to a place that audiences wouldn't and couldn't go.

Even with the criticism, Martyrs did to me what any good horror film should: shock and horrify. At the risk of being ridiculed, the last 20 minutes of this film nearly had me in tears. Not because I was that connected with Anna, but because it was just that horrific to imagine ANY human being put through that.

I don’t know if I’d go as far as saying it had me on the verge of tears, but the stuff with Ana was very effective for me as well. Setting aside for a moment the debate of what Martyrs is trying to say and whether or not there’s any value in that, what I can say is that the torture scenes here are highly successful in eliciting their intended reaction. It was a painful series of events to watch, with perhaps the worst part being the least gory; I’m thinking of the scene where a hulking male figure pummels Ana. IIRC, we never actually see his fists make contact with her, but the implications of the beating paired with the score that accompanies it are far worse than any visual could have been. That scene was absolutely heart breaking for me. Also, in another example of what they don’t show being worse than anything they could’ve shown, we see Ana again only after she has been “prepared” for the final stage. They never show the actual process of preparing her and while that may very well have been a budgetary choice, it pays off perfectly when Ana enters the final room and they reveal what has been done to her.

I wouldn’t say I “liked” this film, not like Inside (an instant classic in my mind, one which I’ve shared with most of my friends. Don’t think I’ll be doing the same with Martyrs), but I do appreciate what they’ve done, even if I never sit through it again. It’s not the best of the new crop of French horror, but it may very well be the most emotionally draining.

Late in following this up, apologies for not scanning the boards better, and thanks for posting my thoughts as a jumping off point for debate. I do think the reactions to the picture are as fascinating as the premise of the picture itself (which I do think could have been very good but, sadly, just....wasn't). I do also wonder if there's a significant amount well-meaning overcompensation in the life-changing praise for the film by fans; a vigourous, passionate clasping to the chest of a picture that is bound to be rejected by the mainstream but can be used as something defiantly emblematic of the modern horror film. Which is commendable and better than holding up one of the Saw sequels.

To explain my thoughts (or frustrations) about this further:

I see fans complaining how reviews are focusing on the bravura opening revenge section at the expense of the supposedly more meditative second half. This is rich, considering director Laugier himself admitted in a Q&A I saw that the idea for the picture originated with a girl wanting vengeance on a family years after something happened to her. He then had to figure out what that was and why. Which is another reason the incongruous second half feels haphazard, ill-thought out and ultimately tacked on to the more rousing first half: it was an after thought.

To adress my comments re: Frontiere(s) in relation to Martyrs -- perhaps I'm going all Armond White, but I find Gens (note: I'm ignoring Hitman for the moment since it's impossible to disseminate what's Gens' and what Fox's fault on that troublesome title) to be a filmmaker who knows he can shoot and is simply trying out a whole barrage of ideas within a realm he obviously adores. Laugier, also technically adept, seem ill-content with simply filming something with grim panache or settling for a deeply edgy horror concept -- he imbues (read: overbakes) it with a faux sense of pomposity and/or tragic meaningfulness and/or turgid spirituality which kinds of shits hubristically and from a great height on the more purely horrfic staples it otherwise brings to mind (Dreyer, the V For Vendetta graphic novel, Italian and Japanese horror, Mark Of The Devil, Barker, many others) who rarely had to persuade an audience so much and so earnestly of "how much it all means, man." Gens feels like a prodigious teenage tearaway who's growing up with his filmmaking, moving forward, propulsive and inquisitive (even if completely ADD); Laugier seems like someone who's grown up fast already but who is stuck in a rather stultifying and moody teenage angst, pondering the futility of it all without feeling the need to probe further, as if the mere hint of the notion is enough to impact on an audience. No matter his technical credentials, it feels like the work of a bored philosophy student. He's content to push the envelope visually and thematically but not follow through on some inspiring ideas.

The irony is, it's not Laugier's (very well made) film itself I take real issue with. It's more to do with the elevation of it as some kind of sacred modern horror screed. And that feels all the more disingenuous when you recall how the story's genesis -- as a regular revenge film. Who makes the conscious decision to make "extreme films" without the publicity machine at the forefront of their minds? However, at least, say, Gasper Noe has the sense to treat it all as a PR game, taunting and baiting both critics and audiences; and Alexandre Aja uses it as a springboard to mainstream gigs; and Michael Haneke makes pictures that are more "mature" for want of a better/more appropriate word.

As I say, I'm objectively more enthusiastic about Gens simply because a tyro whose excesses can potentially be tamed and finessed is more interesting to me than a director with a film so over-hyped he can't fail to believe his own press and how he's pulled the wool over people's eyes with non-existent profundity and shoddy spiritualism. Ultimately, that purported "sincerity" is the thing which I don't buy. If Martyrs was really intent on philosophizing concepts of the violence of martyrdom, it would, like Haneke, spend less time focusing on the actual acts of violence than it does regarding the questions that that violence engenders. *That* would give any violence/gore more impact and give the debate more than glib lipservice which I feel is used here in the hope it makes it more "acceptable" than, you know, all that "Horrible Commercial 'Torture Porn' Nonsense" TM.

What more material is there to mine, to work toward, when you've delivered what some are calling some kind of "ultimate experience"? To me what's worse than any conceivable "Hostel" rip-off is the belief that it's anyway any more meaningful going on beneath the high-school level metaphysics. So there's the upcoming Hellraiser redux, which will no doubt going to amp up the S&M aspects? I'm sure all fans of Repo will be happy. Regardless of Barker's intriguing predilections, the actual kink was the most boring part of "Hellraiser" the film and it sequels. It was the exploration of perverse *ideas* (and Barker explores them quite thoroughly most of the time in his work) that intrigued, not mere lip service to a notion.

Of course the basic notion of a young girl being beaten for 20 minutes is affecting. How could it not be. But what is there beyond that? It's a question asked in the climax of the film itself and the answer is the same here as it most likely is there (but perhaps not -- and this the extent of the debate the film offers): not much.

As a caveat (lest you think I'm simply a prude -- but if you've been here for a while you'll know that couldn't be further from the case) I wouldn't suggest that supposed "torture porn" poster child Hostel 2's knowing and vey well executed manipulation of its audience is far more intriguing at a basic philosophical/sociological level than anything in Martyrs. And it does so without once pretending it's anything it's not.

Great post, even if I don't agree with it 100%

I think the point I was trying to make is that we’ve all seen plenty of films where, for whatever reason, the horrors inflicted on the character are anything but effective. For the most part, in films like Hostel and Saw, these scenes elicit little more than an “OMG!” or “That was awesome!” reaction from their audience. Martyrs, on the other hand, is absolutely stark and horrifying in its depictions of violence and never once makes it fun or entertaining. While that certainly doesn’t excuse the film’s emptiness, for lack of a better term, it does make it more of a true horror film than its torture-porn brethren. I have to give it some credit for at least trying to make its audience think on a larger scale about violence as a means to an end.

Additionally, I don’t think it’s fair to call out Laugier for a faux sense of pomposity (even though I love that line and plan on using it myself!) I think he tried to make a horror film that rises above the conventions of the genre, and at the very least he succeeded in creating a visceral, thought-provoking film. In comparison, while I enjoyed Frontiere(s), I think it’s little more than a (well shot) mash-up of the films that inspire it. I agree that Martyrs doesn’t really offer any monumental answers to what lies ahead for the horror genre, (and it’s certainly not the watershed moment for the genre some claim it to be) but it’s still a solid entry in a genre that sees too few of those.

This IS Horror.

(I'm on my second bottle of wine just to deal)

Understand and appreciate Strax's criticisms, but I think the seemingly layers of ambiguity is the movie's biggest strength.

I think the movie only works if you believe she was truly martyred and saw God at the end. Almost flipping ROSEMARY'S BABY on its head, this time the twist is at the expense of the evil cult. I took it that what was whispered to the old lady was a message from the "other side" of her obsession-there is something out there, He's pissed, and there is going to be payback. (loosely tying together with and bringing it back to the first act)

It could also be that the truth revealed; like the face of God Himself, was more than could be handled by such an empty, evil old woman -like the nazis at the end of Raiders, it doesn't end well for those who "fuck around with the infinite".

(Whatever this message delivered was, it caused her to blow her brains out.)

Man, what an unnerving film!

I don't believe that was the same woman, as the 15 year time frame should have aged her more, along with the fact the credits list two separate roles and actresses. Regardless, One can speculate that they were experimenting to rescind her delusions by blinding her for a period of time, as those that see something other than god (cockroaches in her case) were listed as failures. The film doesn't provide enough explanation or context to determine that though, and that's it's ultimate failing. It was presented that Ana went through through a similar sequence of mundane beatings as Lucie did before it escalated into the final extreme Coup de grâce, but that doesn't properly mesh with this sequence either without more exposition.

I see Strax's problem with the direction shift and the ideas behind the initial screenplay, but I sort of liked that bit of misdirection. Those familiar enough with some of the latest french extreme horror films were already looking at Lucie's imaginary creature as the crux of the film, and the switch up was a welcome relief from something that's become sort of passé. In total though, it's such an extreme shift and pacing change that it pulls into reverse of what normally works in the horror genre: a slow burn followed by a frantic ending.

And while the internet seems to have embraced it's "for the viewer to decide" ending, I think the end result is rather unsatisfying for an intriguing idea such as unfettered science experimenting to determine the existence of God. A hard resolution, even with a supernatural bent, would have given purpose to the events that precided it, so the end result does seem rather empty.

Holy cow, this movie is boring. I spent the last half an hour wishing this movie would get to the point. When did we start embracing movies that hate the audience?

Pretty much agree with Strax here. The first half of the film is somewhat inspired. The 2nd half strives to be more than just some more torture porn, and it utterly fails. The villains come off as barely 2D, lacking any clear motivation other than some BS philosophy on the transcendence of pain. They don't even have a "force of nature" kind of presence in the film.

I liked the leads though, and it was well shot. I didn't hate the structure of the script, finding it mildly surprising at times. I just wish it had something real to say. The fact that the mademoiselle commits suicide at the end seemed really slapped on, as if the filmmakers knew the ending was very unsatisfactory.

ETA:

Thinking about it, the film really acts like a (lesser) response to HOSTEL. That film ends on a revenge thread, this film starts on one. Both explore notions of the uh loosely-put, torture business. Both films play in genre-hopping sandbox. Its pretty obvious which one I prefer.

That's so so wrong. Really. I don't in what language you saw Inside, but in French, the movie has some of the most retarded characters ever written. Ever.

Spoilers for Inside:

The main protagonist spend her time crying, and the woman attacking her has one motivation. She wants her baby, and eventually cut it out. That's it. That's how deep it gets. Inside is superb, and gory, but is so poorly written it squashes it's qualities. It's a shame, really.

As for Martyrs, it's even more violent and gory, but at least there are characters. The turn it takes at the middle might turn you off, but it's as honest as Hostel. It's torture, and whether or not you think it applies to the term martyr is irrelevant. The definition of martyr and it's origin are precisely that: to witness. And the witnesses were typically tortured to get the truth out of them. In this case, what lies after death.

I liked Strax's post, but I got out of the movie what Fat Elvis also seemed to get. It's flawed, but it's still a good horror movie. It's creepy and scary as fuck. Much better than Hostel, who clings to your average tits and gore and comedy for a while before plunging into torture, while this one was on it from the start.

What really distracted me was that it's French movie. But it was shot in Quebec, and the family that gets destroyed, and Mademoiselle, the old lady, are Quebec actors, and theirs fake French accent was bugging as hell, but that's a minor nitpick.

Like Trevor said, it's good, but you can't "enjoy" this, unless you need special pills.

Just because you don't dig Inside, doesn't mean it has shallow characters.

I didn't like Inside because of the lack of characters. Put some in and you'd have a great movie. A really great one. It's what's frustrating about it. It's actors who onscreen parts are blank pages. Or incredibly stupid people in the case of all the characters excepts the two protagonists.

The lead was good, and Beatrice Dalle was great. The other characters were props.

Yeah, but they're underwritten.

Mind you, these two are great actresses on their own right. Dalle is a proven actress, but who knew that Vanessa Paradis's younger, hotter sister had all the acting chops her sister didn't have ( Vanessa Paradis is Mrs. Johnny Depp btw).

I disagree that they were underwritten. Plus, I thought both actresses were excellent in their roles. The main character is about to give birth to a baby she feels no connection to. It's certainly simple - the characters, who they are at the point that we meet them, both spring out of this horrific event. But I think it works well. I love the flick, and it's the performances that put it high up there for me.

But every secondary character is nil. Maybe I'm too harsh, and I have to acknowledge the acting of Dalle and Paradis. But the res? Had to movie being about the two actresses, I presume I would have been much more positive about it. And these two were better than all the acting of Martyr combined.

But don't you feel the rest of the cast was superficially written? The cops? The mother? Cops that never draw a gun while a suspect is in a stranger's house? And so on? Maybe I'll need a re-watch to see if I'm wrong about it.

Anyway, I like where the French are going with their horror movies.

I mean, the other characters were fodder for Dalle, but I thought the mother and the boss (or whoever the poor guy was that was going to take her to the hospital the next day) had enough shades. I mean, you know the mother feels completely shut out by her daughter but is still trying to reach out...before knitting needle to neck. I know that people complain that people keep showing up to the house, and that it's silly. And it is sorta. But, like I said above, it's the two main performances that make this thing special. At least to me. There's a fairly decent making of doc on the DVD that shows how emotionally drained the actresses got. Anyway, I'd say give it another shot. But it's not exactly a movie you you want to revisit too often.

Maybe it's a dead horse, but the dumb cop fodder really undercuts Dalle's menace. I get that they didn't want her character to be some sort of Rambo villain who can disarm and kill trained police officers, but turning the cops into bumbling buffoons makes it seem like Inside just wanted a body count. I would have preferred it if the film hadn't introduced the fodder, or had at least limited them to Mom and the friend.

Yeah.

Back to Martyrs, the flayed alive scene was thankfully short. You see the guy, the scissors, snipping them and then her flinching. Pretty effective, and you know what's coming. But the extent of it? Shit. It's the reveal that's jawdropping.

If this movie bored you then perhaps you should stick to cartoons.

Well, since you're such the film scholar here, maybe you can convince me that this movie had a point to make. Near as I can tell they spent the last half an hour pounding away at their philosophical limp dick and came up with nothing.

I don't watch horror films for social commentary or enlightenment. How many actual horror films have a "point"? You can call Martyrs alot of things, but boring isn't one of them.

The movie ground to a halt in the final third, what else would I call it?

The point of the film is that there is no God.

I've been curious about, Martyrs. This discussion makes me think I should wait until it's cheaper or if I can find it somewhere for rent. Inside was essentially an 82 minute demo reel for the SFX team. The score was pretty good though.

Here's some spoilery questions, so beware:




The question is: what did Ana tell Mademoiselle to drive her to suicide?
It becomes really ambiguous with her last line, when she ask Etienne if he can imagine what's after death, and she respond "Keep doubting"

Was it

A- She told her what lied in the afterlife, which would be positive and she killed herself to get there ASAP, keeping the answer to herself.

B- Like A, but Mademoiselle killed herself because of Ana's answer, which is negative (no life after death). I don't Ana could have lied, considering the state she was in.

Whatever these answer were, why didn't she share it with the group? My guess is pure selfishness, as she seems as a cold a bitch as you can get, and used the group as tools, but still.

She told her there was no life after death, and the old women killed herself because she couldn't live with the fact that she had committed all these atrocities for nothing. That's my reading, anyway.

And why bother telling the others? There's no point. There's no point to anything, that's the point.

It's this whole French nihilism thing going on.

Why would the faith in a god that she was willing to torture and murder to understand be shaken by the words of one person that's been tortured to the verge of death, though?

Ana was the only Martyr to complete the process. As such, her word was law, that is the foundation of their work and beliefs. If they aren't going to take her word as law, why bother in the first place?

Sure, wouldn't she expect the answer, thought? It's either it's paradise, it's hell, or there's nothing. But your read what I think is the most plausible option. And btw, I can't remember what was your old screen name.

I think the answer they were hoping for was that there was something more, be it heaven, hell or whatever. Again, if they weren't hoping for that to begin with, why bother?

My old handle was Aquafresh.

The thing to understand is that it is a rumination on nihilism. The French are really fixated on this culturally at the moment, and it's making for some interesting horror.

That's always the ultimate thing to push someone over the edge. They want it to be this complex thing, and it's not. It's either very simple, or not at all.

The paradox with Martyrs is that if the mademoiselle is awaiting a "heaven" resposne, wouldn't her atrocities prevent her from experiencing such an afterlife? Similarly with a "hell" response, because they'd be headed there by default, although both presuppose that the secret society is coming from a Christian perspective. I can't remember if Martyrs ever touches upon that. One might think that a "nothing" response might be the most favorable for the group. Live it up!

The movie doesn't touch the subject. You have no clue about he organization, but Mademoiselle told Ana that martyrdom precluded religion.

What's key here is her "Keep doubting" line.

You can only speculate on what Ana's revelation was and there's no right or wrong answer. The film deliberately withholds it from you. It's the intent of the film maker to leave the ending open to your own interpretation, which is why I find the ending wholly unsatisfying after everything we have witnessed preceding it.

I read an interview (in French) where the filmmaker said that it's deliberately left open, but that basically, whatever is in the afterlife would too much to handle for a human brain, so there was that to consider. I can guess, but in the end, it's just that.

The only thing that makes sense is that whatever Ana told her shattered her mind or was too much to handle. And that Ana didn't lie, considering that after that, we see the definition of martyr, followed by Ana being in a catatonic state. Considering what she done, a "there's nothing after death" wouldn't drive Mademoiselle to suicide.

Saw this at the Melbourne Film Festival and it bored me to literal tears. I went to see the film with a friend knowing nothing about it, having not heard even what the movie was about. The opening sequences had me in a vice and I was completely willing to go in any direction the film took me in, but by the end of the thing I was just greatful that it was over. I didn't find it shocking or confronting or even that disturbing, I knew what it was trying to get at so I don't need to go back to watching cartoons or any such things it just didn't work for me at all. Towards the end I was thinking it had something of a try hard Clive Barker element to it so not surprised at all to hear about the new Hellraiser connection.

On an unrelated note, is Clive Barker OK? I saw a recent interview with him - the guy used to have a truly high-pitched voice, now he sounds like he's swallowed a mile of gravel road.