jotix100 Mike Figgis is an innovative director. This film was made before his other, more daring movie, "Timecode" in which he worked with a split screen in which the action could be seen happening at all times in all four sections. This film is also full of symbolism that will elude viewers. We don't think the director wanted to lose, no pun intended, the audience. The action in this film is seen through the eyes of Nic at different stages of his life. As the movie opens, he appears in the form of a child Nic and he makes another visit at the end of the movie, perhaps to watch our reaction. The child has intelligent eyes; he appears to be looking at our soul, or perhaps he is telling us this was his own story. The film that doesn't follow a linear narrative. Mr. Figgis composed the incidental music. He also includes well known piano pieces from composers like Beethoven and Chopin that plays well with the images on the screen. The real coup of the director was to employ Benoit Delhomme as the cinematographer of this droll story that follows Vic from childhood. Mr. Delhomme photographs the natural locations with such care that it might prove a distraction for the viewer.Some interesting actors were engaged to give life to this sophisticated look about the loss of innocence. This is a sensual movie that relies on the openness in which the director wanted to show. Julian Sands is Vic, the young boy of the story, now an adult and a film director. Saffron Burrows is seen in a double role; she is a ravishing woman! Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays Vic as a young man. Kelly MacDonald is seen as Susan. Hanne Klintoe and Femi Ogumbanjo are seen as Adam and Eve as they are placed on the garden of eden and when they are thrown out from it after having taste the forbidden fruit. John Cowey is Vic as a child in a non speaking but highly effective part. Rosie DePalma, a Spanish actress with an amazing face, is seen as a blind woman in a riveting scene.Like it or not, Mike Figgis is not a director to dismiss easily because he is an original.

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.

teddyryan THE LOSS OF SEXUAL INNOCENCE has some great parts and some bad parts. Nonetheless, a huge undertaking by Mike Figgis as he tries to connect Adam and Eve to violence and loss of culture and to almost every aspect of modern civilization. * * * The first part of the film is dazzling. A gorgeous boy runs through the fields of Northern Africa and encounters a magnificent sight. The super 16mm looks tremendous, the images enchanting, and the tone powerful. Unfortunately, Figgis starts to weave various narratives with unsuccessful title cards (though I loved the music playing during the Kelly McDonald segment) and our point of view becomes jumbled. As a result, beautifully filmed sex scenes are lost within a haze of overplayed classical music, redundant dream sequences, and pretentious portrayals of man's origin. However, the (SPOILER!) conclusion where the woman gets stabbed the natives is dramatic as it gets. * * *I have to say that although this film isn't a great watch, Mike Figgis is one of the most talented working filmmakers I've seen in a while.