Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

kenjha A young man engages in debauchery and swashbuckling adventures in 14th century Italy. This film is mostly harmless, but an incredibly lame attempt to make a sex comedy set during the time of the Roman Empire as Europe is devastated by the Black Plague. The script and direction are so amateurish that it looks like a low-budget TV movie. It is difficult to buy Christensen as a swashbuckling hero, as he looks about twelve and has little screen presence. Roth looks embarrassed to have become involved with this project. The only selling point here is that there are some quite attractive women in the cast and they tend to disrobe with some regularity.

charlytully When you view the trailer for VIRGIN TERRITORY, it is clear the marketing department is trying to attract those who went ga-ga over Baz Luhrmann's not totally dissimilar 1996 avant-garde literary adaptation, ROMEO + JULIET, which IMDb users have rated 40 per cent better than director David Leland's hatchet job on Giovanni Boccacchio's centuries-old bacchanalia, THE DECAMERON. When you listen to ancient wind-bag producer Dino De Laurentiis expound on VIRGIN TERRITORY's "Making of . . . ," it's clear his team had one thing in mind: a cheap youth-oriented sexploitation pic. The titillating but hardly relevant retitling of the film is only the first clue to the cringe-worthiness of this non-effort. (I personally prefer the Italian title, DECAMERON PIE, as it some aptly evokes a picture of Boccacchio-style ribaldry devolving to the thoughtless raunch of the endless AMER!CAN PIE movie series.) Within the first few minutes of VIRGIN, someone falls into a pool of excrement, and the dialog is delivered with a constant stream of incongruous accents and anachronistic modern obscenities. Worse yet, the Black Death Plague theme is milked for a few attempts at humor that totally misfire, after which the pretense of a historical setting is abruptly dropped. The lame pretense at religious satire or sacrilege pulls its punch, and the alleged sex scenes are for the most part brief erotic-free zones. Not everyone can pull off Fellini's SATYRICON (1969), but a word to the wise: when you pump out crap like VIRGIN TERRITORY, do NOT crow about it on a "Making of . . . " Rather, take your money and run--fast!

Enchanted-Rain "Virgin Territory" stars Hayden Christensen and Mischa Barton (don't laugh), in a rowdy medieval tale in the vein of Monty Python (though not as witty), Robin Hood: Men in Tights, and the Princess Bride. Of course, it begins with Christensen speaking with a believable British accent, which I personally feel he should adopt for all of his movie roles. He sounds more comfortable and realistic than he does using Northern American English. His accent has bothered me for years but strangely he didn't mangle the British one.Well, Virgin Territory surprised me. And I mean I am pleasantly surprised. The movie was filmed two or three years ago and was finally, very quietly released in March 2008 straight to DVD. Were the producers too embarrassed for a theatrical release? They needn't be. I've seen much much worse and for the record, Virgin Territory isn't horrible-bad, but intentionally bad since it's a parody and a sex comedy, its demographics clearly with teenage boys in mind. If any of these actors are Catholic they might be ex-communicated now, with all the sex with nuns, in twosomes and threesomes-- naked peeing cherubs and all.Aside from the questionable Mischa Barton, Virgin Territory manages a reputable cast in Tim Roth, Matthew Rhys and a handful of other actors some of you may recognize.I didn't think it was great, but think it deserved a little more than a straight to DVD release. Some obvious flaws? Mischa Barton's acting was absolutely abysmal. She had no chemistry with Hayden Christensen. The plot was aimless and probably should have been grosser. If you're going to do a dirty sex comedy, you need to bring it or the jokes fall flat.Anyway, it wasn't an entire waste of time. I really wanted to know what was going to happen next. I would recommend it. Just for the giggles. It wasn't great. It wasn't completely horrible. You've seen worse, I'm sure of it. The costumes were nice, the director managed to make the period look real, despite an able Rupert Friend in cornrolls and bad guys in leather jackets designed by Roberto Cavalli.

night_prankster I liked the idea of this picture more then the picture itself.Because it's to hard now the repeat the success of youngsters sex comedies like "American Pie" and "Eurotrip", so the authors decided to remove the usual and not so interesting love stories to the 18th century in Italy. Something new to see in this movie we cannot.All the jokes that the producers shoe are the same prankster thing that we could watch in other movies that came to the big screen earlier. The actor's playing is middle,not something great in common.And you must love these actors to enjoy them. So,Man's imagine doesn't know borders.I think, an idea of the Italy as location was the Shakespeare's Romeo and Julia.