ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
What a snoozer.
The only thing going for it was the photography, but even that became monotonous and self-indulgent in a film school sort of way.
In 1965 I guess it had a different context. This was a time on the verge of the drug culture and sexual revolution, so people going mad was timely.
And I will say that it had one or two scares. But, oh boy, this movie dragged.
What a bore.
[deleted]
Explaining why it is one of the "crowning achievements of '60's cinema" might be helpful. Does the fact that the movie has a solid fan-base make really it great?
shareYou lose, pal.What did they lose? Was there a contest here I wasn't aware of?
This was a great movie, if you have the patience to understand it. And it doesn't take much patience. It's really disturbing and amazingly crafted, anything but boring.
sharecome on! the first half of the movie was character building at the most sluggish and to try and generate some sympathy/empathy for a "cracked" character was largely pointless
disturbing? compared to a Disney movie maybe but we are in the 21st century with A Serbian Film, Human Centipede, August Underground etc etc
accept that its a slow film, hideously dated, poor audience identification...if it were released today it would be laughable SRS
some good images - the hands grabbing from the walls - but largely not that good
"disturbing? compared to a Disney movie maybe but we are in the 21st century with A Serbian Film, Human Centipede, August Underground"
Repulsion is a psychological horror film that actually relies on mood and atmosphere to create a sense of dread, while those films are just cheap, violent torture filled exploitation films. It's sad that those films keep getting mentioned in a discussion of real films. August Underground in particular is such nasty, ugly, amateurish crap, I don't know why anyone watches it, let along brings it up in conversation but, I guess if pointless and excessive, low budget gore drenched murder without substance is what you're looking for...).
I thought it was rather dull as well.
shareThe movie had a very slow start, and I was afraid it was going to be a pretty dull film. However, by the time she's sitting on the street staring at cracks in the ground and it's clear that she's losing it, I was completely engrossed. Catherine Deneuve gives such a riveting performance and the 'scares' are among the most lingering and disturbing sequences in recent memory for me. I can see how some may call this movie slow, or even repetitive, but a snoozer? NO WAY!
shareI was worried at first too because it just wasnt grabbing me and then around 45 min in a couldnt take my eyes off the screen for the rest of the film.
shareI disagree. I was creeped out.
shareThe pace of this film is among my favorites. Nothing being thrown at the viewer every 3 minutes, realistic but moody atmosphere. Why would anyone want 'something to HAPPEN' during those moments that are the most engrossing?
And it had nothing to do with the 60's. By the time much more explicit films came along during that time, films like Repulsion were already starting to be considered passe (or old fashioned).
But to me, they'll always be among the best. But I'm also a person who absolutely loves the first half of Vertigo, which many people also claim is slow. Not to me. At all.
I found it slow as well. It was no Rosemary's Baby.
"Leave the gun. Take the canolis."
This isn't my favorite Polanski movie, but I do like it for various reasons. I agree the movie is very slow, but in a sense that does work for the plot as the hours drag by for the character and we gradually feel her daily life mixed with her fears and feeling of isolation start to take a toll on her sanity. That can be seen in various other movies like Eraserhead and The Shining as well. You just feel like your a part of it. When I first watched this, La Bete Humaine, The Seventh Seal, and Vampyr (all on the Criterion Collection) I was expecting soomething completely different than what I actually got. With something like White Dog and The Devil and Daniel Webster the stories are much more clear and with House it's not meant to be understood or taken seriously and those deliver your expecations more. Movies like this require some time to take it in and make your own assumptions. That's not a bad thing, it's just somethign that requires more time and thinking. Also I'm one of those people that for whatever reason seems to enjoy a movie alot more the second time. I guess it's because I had time to think about it and hear other's describe what makes it so good and when I rewatch it I can understand it better and find what's good about it. When I rewatched La Bete Humaine and Vampyr, I could see what made them so great. I haven't yet done the same for this and The Seventh Seal, but I plan to. I'd recommend giving this a second try. It's not quite as straight to the point as Rosemary's Baby, The Fearless Vampire Killers, or The Tenant, but it's still a good film from Polanski. I just accept what I'm getting and admire what makes it good like the visuals, the black and white photography, and the feeling of isolation and when I rewatch it I'll probably feel more things. But being an art film it has a different appeal to each person so I can't really blame you for feeling that way.
shareEither you have no idea what the IMDb is or you know exactly what it is. I'm leaning towards the latter, based on how you wrote your post.
MorganReidSexGod and A_Christmas_Screenname no more. Shed a tear, dear.
I thought this movie was very dull too. Someone said it best earlier when they said that it just doesn't age well. There are thrillers from the 40s and 50s (see Hitchcock) that are outstanding films and still entertaining to watch today...better characters, better dialogue, better stories. I generally have a lot of patience for movies but Repulsion was just a snoozer. I had no sympathy whatsoever for Carole's character. We were offered no back-story at all for her, and it made it hard for me to care about the fact that she was going crazy. I found her character to be more frustrating than anything. Why was that guy even interested in her? She barely talks! He may as well have been pursuing a mannequin, yet he acted as though he was in love with her. I found that pretty unrealistic. The ending also left me pretty unfulfilled. I understand that there are movies which are meant to be read versus movies that tell you everything, but for me the characters still have to be interesting, engaging, and somewhat likable for either type to be successful. The characters in this film didn't have any of these attributes. Just my opinion...
shareThe only thing about Repulsion that hasn´t "aged well" or is "dated", is the Swinging London soundtrack. In all other regards, particularly content wise, it´s as universal and relevant as it was in 1965. Talking of Hitchcock btw, look up his 1964 psychothriller Marnie if you want psychobabble which in its heavy handedness and with its easy answers is very much, yes, "dated". Compared that number, Repulsion is beautifully understated and ambiguous.
And you don´t need to present any elaborate "backstories" in order to develop character.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan