Maidgethma Wonderfully offbeat film!

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

ChelseaGirl98 This film was so painful to watch that I turned it off about halfway through. It was excruciatingly bad. The lack of dialog was annoying, the same piano sonata playing constantly in the background was even more annoying, and the "story" was practically nonexistent. It was trying very hard to be arty, but it was just laughable instead. Nothing in the film was connected. What on earth did the story of the twins have to do with Nic's story? What did that ridiculous Adam-and-Eve sequence have to do with anything? The answer is nothing. Nothing in this film has anything to do with anything else. Mike Figgis should be embarrassed about making this movie, which is like a bad senior thesis from an untalented film-school student. I've got news for him: Taking a bunch of pretty images and setting them to music does not a film make.

Thriceshy It's not often I use the term "tripe" to describe a film, but it's one of the less ugly terms that leapt to mind after watching this crap-fest. It was all I could do to finish watching, and my first words once credits began to roll were "my God, they actually paid thousands and thousands of dollars to make that mess." By my reckoning, this flick's bloated 106 minutes could have been trimmed to a far less fingernail-itching 80 minutes, had someone in the cutting room come to the realization that nobody needs to stare at a car stereo for 30 seconds or the exterior of a house for 55 seconds.I know, I know, throwing together overwrought soundtracks, "new" camera angles (which become OLD after the dozenth time utilized), sepia-toned scenes, and dialogue so muted it requires subtitles constitutes "art." But in my little world, an "art" film that defies enjoyment isn't worth a whole heck of a lot.Performances were terrific, in as much as they could be, given the material. Julian Sands and Jonathan Rhys Meyers were particular stand-outs. Sadly, they couldn't make this boat float.In a nutshell? This film leaves you hanging, waiting for . . . something. Waiting for a spark to light it up, give it some point, some purpose. Waiting for something to drag it from artsy, self-indulgent rubbish. That something never comes.

Koteas1 Well, I have to say that the comments on this movie are everywhere from "I'd give this a 0/10 if I could" to "10/10 masterpiece". Yes, this movie is all over the place. Confessed, I expected it to be that way when I decided to watch it. I would bear a non linear movie, and rather demented symbolism, if the theme is something that appeals to me, or better still - FITS the form of the movie. Sadly this did not. It's just art-cinema's answer to the hype around sex for pleasure nowadays. In a good movie, (just as with a good book) the theme should dominate the form. Sadly, the form was having epileptic fits here while the theme just sat there being generic and straightforward. This is rather like telling a story and structuring it like a poem. Why try to make the story of a (rather uninteresting, however handsome) man's sexual life up to his mid 40's subject to an artsy attack? The story (or the little that there IS) behind it is not deep, and not particularly meaningful, but the form (the way it's shot / the random scenes and flashbacks) didn't really help it to more seriosity and were hence, rather laughable. Triviality cloaked in 'artistry' really isn't down my street. If the theme would have been something very meaningful or complex or tragic, the form might have worked a little better (Why not give it an American Gothic touch, rather like McGrath or Brockden Brown in film version?) It would have raised the seriosity of the movie (and believe me... this movie is taking itself very seriously).I just cannot love a movie with such a trivial and generic theme (sex for pleasure) because it isn't really new or, as I said before, all too meaningful or deep in itself. Goes to show that you need a story that actually deserves to be wrapped in the cloak of stilted artistry.In its credit however, I will say that some of the camera work was stunning, and some visuals were quite breathtaking. I can't say I relate to the characters, but then with an artsy movie it's really hit or miss if you'll relate to them, since they must appeal to you personally to start off with, since they don't usually say much in their favor throughout the movie.Last but not least I'd like to say that even though I didn't particularly enjoy this movie doesn't mean that I don't enjoy art house movies. It's funny how people say "if you didn't like this you can go watch some generic love comedy in the cinema"... there's something in between too, you know! This isn't "either ultra-artsy or generic to an extreme degree" - there's some very good art-house flicks that realize that being alternative doesn't mean having to resort to obscure camera angles and a scattered plot.

TUCKDEJONG I found this film much by accident, however the sexual interaction througout this film was quite intriguing. Hanne Klintoe is a looker with a very fine body. Interesting to see Ms. Macdonald, who also appeared in "Elizabeth" and "Trainspotting". And by the way, in "GosfordPark". Apparently Ms. Klintoe has not appeared in any other film, or at least, has no record of filmography. Wish I knew if she is in any other film. Incidentally, Saffron Burrows, who is murdered in this film also appears in the very fine film entitled "Enigma". A spy story about encoding messages during the 2nd world war. Enigma, like this film has many twists and turns to the plot and also enjoys some of the finest British actors of record. I enjoyed this film and posses a copy of the same.