I didn't think there was anything special about Martyrs. I also felt certain, while watching it, that a lot of people would love it. In my review, I will try to communicate both sides.
Short version: martyrs has some great scenes and takes some unusual turns. Despite what other reviewers have said, you should go in expecting entertainment (of the darkest sort!) rather than realism/art. Regarding "art," the film tries to tackle too much at once and falls on its face. Not the holy grail of horror, but it's still worth seeing.
Long version: Another reviewer, in a haste to discount any similarities to Hostel, compared Martyrs to Gaspar Noe's "Irreversible." I think Hostel would be an acceptable comparison, actually, but Irreversible is truly more similar in a deep sense. Irreversible and Martyrs are both very stylish, brutal, and captivating. They each alternate between scenes of shocking violence and philosophical contemplation. And in the end, both films are quite a ride but a bit of an ideological mess.
I will add another, idiosyncratic, comparison: Audition. Like Audition, I went into Martyrs expecting the most upsetting 90 minutes of my life, and came out wondering if I had seen the wrong film.
Martyrs starts out with a very realistic tone. A really mucked-up-looking young girl escapes from some sort of terrible abuse. It is quite painful to watch her run--there's something really helpless about her. There is not entertainment in this scene; only pain. Following are a few clips from a faux-documentary about her escape, increasing the realism. Only a few minutes more, however, and the film totally turns around.
At the first kill scene, the film takes a "leap" (pun!) from realism to romanticism. Someone gets shot, and flies through the air ~15 feet a la "The Matrix." Pretty cool! Concurrently with this, there's a little monster thing running around. Spooky, and symbolic! About 45 minutes in, the plot takes such a leap into the fantastic realm that I wondered if I was watching a dream sequence. I wasn't. The final act includes some hardcore torture to the tune of some sentimental indie music soundtrack--acoustic guitar and whatnot. I believe it was supposed to be sad.
In summary, I didn't like the film because it was too romanticized. Where it strayed from the torture-film template, it really just kind of stumbled around. For many people, this won't be a problem. For others, a problem will simply be that the film took itself too seriously about some absurd situations.
Regarding gore: Pretty gooey, I suppose, but not really. Some people get shot (in a big way, but no exploding heads). Some self-mutilation with a razor (unpleasant to watch, but the effect was pretty weak). There was one creative death which I won't spoil--worth seeing, but too ambitious for its own good and not very convincing. The most captivating makeup/effects were the aftermath of torture. "The skin is like paper!" (GG Allen)
Short version: martyrs has some great scenes and takes some unusual turns. Despite what other reviewers have said, you should go in expecting entertainment (of the darkest sort!) rather than realism/art. Regarding "art," the film tries to tackle too much at once and falls on its face. Not the holy grail of horror, but it's still worth seeing.
Long version: Another reviewer, in a haste to discount any similarities to Hostel, compared Martyrs to Gaspar Noe's "Irreversible." I think Hostel would be an acceptable comparison, actually, but Irreversible is truly more similar in a deep sense. Irreversible and Martyrs are both very stylish, brutal, and captivating. They each alternate between scenes of shocking violence and philosophical contemplation. And in the end, both films are quite a ride but a bit of an ideological mess.
I will add another, idiosyncratic, comparison: Audition. Like Audition, I went into Martyrs expecting the most upsetting 90 minutes of my life, and came out wondering if I had seen the wrong film.
Martyrs starts out with a very realistic tone. A really mucked-up-looking young girl escapes from some sort of terrible abuse. It is quite painful to watch her run--there's something really helpless about her. There is not entertainment in this scene; only pain. Following are a few clips from a faux-documentary about her escape, increasing the realism. Only a few minutes more, however, and the film totally turns around.
At the first kill scene, the film takes a "leap" (pun!) from realism to romanticism. Someone gets shot, and flies through the air ~15 feet a la "The Matrix." Pretty cool! Concurrently with this, there's a little monster thing running around. Spooky, and symbolic! About 45 minutes in, the plot takes such a leap into the fantastic realm that I wondered if I was watching a dream sequence. I wasn't. The final act includes some hardcore torture to the tune of some sentimental indie music soundtrack--acoustic guitar and whatnot. I believe it was supposed to be sad.
In summary, I didn't like the film because it was too romanticized. Where it strayed from the torture-film template, it really just kind of stumbled around. For many people, this won't be a problem. For others, a problem will simply be that the film took itself too seriously about some absurd situations.
Regarding gore: Pretty gooey, I suppose, but not really. Some people get shot (in a big way, but no exploding heads). Some self-mutilation with a razor (unpleasant to watch, but the effect was pretty weak). There was one creative death which I won't spoil--worth seeing, but too ambitious for its own good and not very convincing. The most captivating makeup/effects were the aftermath of torture. "The skin is like paper!" (GG Allen)