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.
You haven't seen Funny Games US have you? Repulsion looks like The Bourne Ultimatum compared to that piece of crap.
Just because it's slow doesn't mean it's a snoozer.
----
My top 5 favorite directors: Kurosawa, Spielberg, Jeunet, Argento, and Gilliam.
Snoozer? Dear lord, attention spans really are declining these days. Really sad.
It's an atmospheric character study about a woman going insane made by Roman Polanski. Scratch that, it's a film made by Roman Polanski. Of course it's going to be slow. I would never have this film done any other way. It was atmospheric, disturbing, and took it's time with it's characters, something I wish more modern films would do.
"However cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, it's reflection always looks you straight in the eye"
[deleted]
You're not receptive to the language of cinema.
The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.
Yeah, people going mad was definitely something exclusive to 1965 or so. No one goes crazy anymore. Part of why there's so much peace and harmony in the world today. Great post.
shareI agree completely. This movie is a snoozefest, and it drags for days. As a horror flick/scary movie, it fails. There are a few well orchestrated moments, but the movie as a whole, just does not deliver: it really is not that disturbing.
And it has nothing to do with it being an old movie, most great movies pack as much punch now as they did back then. The Shining is a prime example. That movie is unsettling from start to finish, regardless of when it was made, and fifty years from now, it will probably still scare the crap out of people.
Repulsion has its moments, but they are few and far in between, and ultimately, unless you are analyzing it for a class project, you will probably be disappointed.
The Shining will only scare little children who sleep with the light on. Any adult frightened of it should be humiliated for life,
shareThis movie was cool, but you wanna see boring? Go watch Carnival Of Souls after taking a nyquil and try to keep up with the stirring plot and frantic pace =P
.. I am, in a word, terse.
It was pretty bad - shocked at the 91/100 rating. Oh well - chick's crazy - i got it... camera angles, weird-jazz? ish sound... whatever.
yeah she was hot back then - look-a-like-ish to paltrow, klum, etc
Bruce Campbell:[When asked what he would want with him if stuck on a deserted island] A continent.
I'm on the opposite side - I love this film, one of my absolute favorites. I watch it every couple of years.
I don't think it drags, really, it just takes time to set everything up, and the descent into madness happens by degrees, after a couple of triggers push her ever closer to the edge.
It's just a difference in preference, though. I don't like to get hit in the mouth, so to speak, as soon as a film starts, and I don't like a lot of action. I get interested in little things actors do, facial expressions, subtlety, and a slow build up to a climax. Watch "Jeanne Dielman..." sometime; that thing is three-and-a-half hours of a woman doing the same routine things over and over and over (making breakfast, cleaning the flat, buying groceries, eating supper, going to bed, all on a loop) and the payoff doesn't happen until something like the last five minutes. And it's brilliant.
In slower-paced films, I feel the delay makes the climax more impactful.
A few people have mentioned the soundtrack as dated and I agree with that, but dated in a good way. It's a bit sparse, but moddish and rather out of place with what's going on onscreen at times.
[deleted]