‘Martyrs’ Review: A Brutal and Unforgiving Film with Some Takeaways—but is it Worth it?

Hanging out on social media horror forums led to me “Martyrs,” the second film I’ve seen in the past year from the “Most Gruesome Films” list. It seems every time I think I’ve heard of them all, a new one pops up. This film, from 2008, is the French horror film from filmmaker Pascal Laugier, who we recently surveyed in the gory yet tense “Incident in a Ghostland.” The first film on the list I watched months ago, “A Serbian Film,” is heralded as the taboo-breaker of all taboo breakers. I found with that film, that advanced hype was its worst enemy. Knowing the film’s worst scenes by word of mouth, it failed to affect me much. “Martyrs” affected me more. The reason is not due to its gore and violence—which are abundant—but its psychological ramifications, which are more harrowing than anything seen on-screen. 

The story of “Martyrs” is introduced furiously, and its opening is visceral and affecting. A young girl named Lucie (Jessie Pham at age 10) escapes from a torture racket. Her young, horrified form runs from an abysmal-looking brownstone factory in an industrial district. Laugier’s film doesn’t pause for much rest here. In quick time a group of journalists depict the horrors that went on here: sleep deprivation, physical abuse, and semi-starvation. “Typical child abuse,” the journalist closes, quick to state that there was no rape. I found this notable. It was a departure from American cinema, that—since the 2000s—loves to focus on sexual violence towards women as its modus operandi. 

Abuse, Trauma, and its Enablers

From there, we get a couple quick scenes of Lucie befriending a girl named Anna in a hospital where she recovers. Anna, also a victim of parental abuse (it’s hinted at only, and nothing as severe as Lucie endured) becomes her confidant. So it’s no surprise when later Lucie wants revenge. She has found a picture in the newspaper of the family who kidnapped and tortured her. Laugier introduces us to the family for long enough that they seem normal and run-of-the-mill. The sister haggles the brother. The father plays peacekeeper, etc. It shatters our expectations, then, when the door rings and Lucie blows them away with a double-barreled shotgun. Her executions are sudden and unremitting. It’s here I realized “Martyrs” was not to be a “I Spit on Your Grave” clone. That’s both its benefit and its curse. The film is more inspired than that ’70s exploitation piece and not offered as entertainment. Laugier wants “Martyrs” to be heavier, and it shows. 

As others have noted, “Martyrs” is really two films. The first is the aftermath of Lucie’s murder, and the second follows Anna as she endures things no one should be made to endure. The film does have a reason for what happens, which separates it from “Hostel” and “The Human Centipede,” but it still doesn’t do much to cleanse the palate. The film also hits in an odd way. As Lucie has killed the family at breakfast—and their home is a beautiful, country-style home—watching she and Anna dispose of the bodies amidst trauma-forced discussions under the gentle window sunlight adds an eerie feel. In many ways, this home becomes a tomb for them all. Its highlighted in the same dreary dolor that encompassed the house scenes of “High Tension.” I’m also curious whether Laugier and cinematographers Stéphane Martin and Nathalie Moliavko-Visotzky are making obvious underlines of how you can never escape trauma, or if it was just an accidental finding. 

Laugier Asks: Can You Move on from Trauma?

“Martyrs” is hard because it lingers. Its leads, Lucie and Anna, set the tone for the film. And actresses Mylène Jampanoï and Morjana Alaoui, respectively, are both tremendous. The film offers the thesis that trauma can change—or destroy—you; and watching Jampanoï wrestle with her demons—including a little girl from the torture house she could not save—it’s obvious she will never be the same. Anna on the other hand is more balanced. She’s agrees to help Lucie with her tasks, but wonders sometimes if she’s crazy. It’s never said out loud, but silent looks convey it. Lucie also sees the little girl from that den of torture in this house who attacks her (with a knife, razor, etc). We’ve seen Lucie is a cutter from the hospital (or so we thought), but is this girl real or imagination? But rather than to be narrative confusion, the juxtaposition from Lucie to Anna is purposive. Lucie’s damaged state is what Anna is fated for, and Laugier is letting our minds glean what that could be like. 

If you come into “Martyrs” looking for a horror film on a cold October night, you should be warned it’s advanced membership. For me, the gore was not harder to endure than “Hostel 2” or “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (2003), but it’s not lost on me that I’m experienced with horror. The shotgun scenes at the film’s beginning hit with thunderous claps and are despairing and desperate. That feeling is not alleviated by the fact that two of the victims likely had it coming. And the way the camera follows Lucie and Anna around this modern home—exploring their pain, love, and empathy for one another against the backdrop of blood-spattered walls—brought a sense of despair and bleakness that’s hard to explain. 

Despairing Themes Throughout

“Martyrs” is heralded in horror communities for its second half—involving Anna—and I can’t imagine the depths of acting poor Alaoui went through to make this film (of note, she broke her foot on-set as she fell 10 feet off a soundstage, per IMDb). She’s tasked with the burden of experiencing all Lucie did from age 10-present in the span of a few weeks. Her torture at the hands of the film’s villains are harrowing and excruciating. But the reason they are so, is the normalcy and despair the film imbues. Laguier makes us—like Anna—go through the states of denial and acceptance—and ultimately learned helplessness. The result for me was that the film’s ending doesn’t hit as shockingly as maybe it should have. 

There’s also the fact that Anna’s captors (trying hard not to spoil things here) are sociopaths but not sadists. Had they enjoyed their deeds, it may have been easier to endure. The film’s close and its afterthoughts are a bit hokey. I was left with the impression that on some level, “Martyrs” may have been a better film had it focused solely on Lucie’s post-revenge stupor and broken state of mind, rather than follow Anna down the same path. But that’s not the film Laugier wanted to make. Anna is unrecognizable to us by the end—physically and emotionally—and the whole time, any decent person just wants to step in and save her. But that’s the horror: we can’t.

Verdict: A Tough Watch

The bottom line: “Martyrs” is a hard watch for those uninitiated to these types of excessive horror films. To me, it wasn’t as traumatizing as some others, but to many it’s one of the worst films out there. That interpretation is up to the viewer. Unlike other torture cinema, the film does ask you to think after the credits roll. You think of poor Lucie and Anna, you think of the depravity they endured, and you wish, remorsefully, that none of it had happened. There’s also overt misogyny on display here, and a complete irreverence for the female body. A captor informs Anna, “females are the best subjects,” and it’s unclear if Laugier’s point is to comment on society’s misogyny, or simply describe it. 

“Martyrs” is a hard, tedious film, but not smut. Whether you want to experience this absolute absence of joy or brightness will depend on your tolerance level. It’s not a film to be enjoyed but endured. That might make you want to steer clear or give it a chance. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. 

Note: I watched the film on Apple TV via rental and the film was the unrated version.