Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
34 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
a hard movie to watch, October 12, 2006
The film is very thought provoking and doesn't mind pushing buttons or boundaries to achieve this end. Although I agree with another reviewer's (Dexter Tay) assessment that this film certainly pertains to Sartre's "Hell is the Other" view, I do not believe this film is more arthouse porn then art. I find it very interesting that the reviews are fairly divided between the sexes. Females seem to rave about this movie and males seem to find things wrong. Hmmmm.
This film is basically two characters, one female and one male (names aren't used because they don't matter - they are ourselves) who are complete strangers and come together to discuss the real view they have of the "Other" as well as themselves. The setting is very bare as there is no need for props - it is the inter-relationship that is front and center and no diversions are allowed. So even though there are several graphic scenes, be prepared for much more dialogue and philosophical discussions between man and woman then actual sexual content. Also, the very graphic content is there for a specific purpose and it is not titillation. For example, the tampon scene is a little too detailed for my comfort but that moment shows the whole point of this amazing film. It was NOT about the female lead's bent toward self-mutilation as one reviewer suggests (sooooo male), otherwise every female who used tampons on a monthly basis would be carrying out a deprived act of self-hatred?! The character makes her views quite plain - it is a male designed product made to "pretty" the primative and natural female rite as society demands we do.
Two scenes stand out from all others: (1) when the women opines on the ridiculousness of the sanitary outer covering of a tampon to prevent intimacy. The very act by its nature is intimate. Why are men and women horrified by menstruation? This topic is delved into with such honesty that the viewer automatically shies away. I'll admit I closed my eyes in one scene; and (2) when the man complains to another about the way the woman let him debase her and with every humiliation, she asked for more. All the while he is disgusted by her, he is haunted by his own actions.
The whole movie makes compelling comments about us as men and women. Catherine Breillat (director) presents a piece of work (based on her novel entitled, "Pornocrate") that forces the viewer to confront issues buried by morality or social conventions. I applaud her brilliant effort.
|
|
|
21 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Deep insight, March 24, 2005
This is, to me, Breillat's best movie. The subject matter of the movie has been delved in by others, so I won't waste time on it.
A generic woman finds a gay man, to observe her and explore the perception that men have of women. During the course of four nights, the perception is dissected, and examined. The woman expresses, nude, before this male that is not attracted to her, her deepest concepts of the battle of the sexes. He in turn, although by definition not attracted to women, observes, comments and indulges. In the end, as in most of Breillat's movies, the questions are left for the viewer to answer, and also to ask.
The actress, Amira Casar is a beauty, and we see a lot of her. The acting is tightly done, and if appears stilted, it is because the situation is in itself stilted.
You will need a stong stomach to watch the whole movie, since there is a particularly revolting scene, but even that scene, fits with the story, and with the desire of the woman to be totally exposed, totally vulnerable and totally degraded.
I have watched some of Breillat's work (A real young girl, Romance) and to me, this is the deepest, most thought provoking of her movies. As opposed to the previously mentioned ones, that I watched once and resold, or gave away, I shall keep this one, and will probably watch it again, more than once, to dissect it further.
The DVD has an interview with the director, and there we find out why a body double was used for the close-up shots: She wanted a hairy person
|
|
|
24 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
"What should we fear more? Nothingness or brutality?'', March 23, 2005
Anyone familiar with maverick French filmmaker Catherine Breillat will pretty much no what to expect when they watch Anatomy of Hell. Those unfamiliar with her work will probably gravitate between a mixture of disgust and wonderment that she can get away with putting such scenes onto film. Reportedly banned in several counties, Anatomy of Hell is a kind of psuedo-feminist, kinky, existential journey that takes the viewer on a journey literally right to the heart of the woman.
Set against a backdrop of artfully dilapidated chateau set atop a cliff, Breillat brings together two completely disparate individuals to share several nights of sordidness. The combatants are a woman played by the French actress Amira Casar, and a gay man played by the abs-of-steel straight Italian adult film star Rocco Siffredi. The two bump into each other on the stairs of a gay disco. The girl is on her way to the restroom to slit her wrists with a razorblade - she's angry that none of the men are paying her any attention.
After the guy helps with her wounds, she performs oral sex on him, then propositions him: in return for money, he will spend four evenings with her. Over the course of their time together, they artfully entwine on a makeshift bed, embark on a solemn round of talking, and, at intervals, partake in some filthy kink. There are lots of graphic close-ups of private parts and various scenes involving lipstick, a garden fork, menstrual blood, and a glass of water.
The scenes are clinical in every respect; they are also dirty, badly edited and shoddily choreographed. And at times, it's almost as if Ms. Breillat's only motivation is the shock value. The dialogue is often awkward, stiff and pretentious, with lots of references to feminine subjugation and male domination. It's actually hard to figure out what the director is trying to say in this film, in any case, there's lots of talk about men and women's essential, bestial, and obscene natures. Maybe the film is trying to answer the question of what women actually want both sexually and spiritually. The woman is obviously after male approval and into celebrating her womanhood; and she probably picked a gay man to do it with because she knows that he will not become emotionally involved with her and remain non-threatening.
I just didn't buy the essential premise of this movie: A gay man would never be able to do some of the things to a woman that this man does, even if she paid him exorbitant sums of money - it just wouldn't happen. Siffredi's character, at his stage in life, would be totally comfortable with who he is; he even admits that he finds women's bodies unappealing, and has no desire to gaze upon what she's got to display.
The acting is passable, although I thought Siffredi was surprisingly good - he has an earthy, brooding quality, which lends itself well to this kind of sexually angst-ridden story. Anatomy of Hell is a hard film to watch and it's filled with images you're not likely to see anywhere else, even in pornography. The more conservative viewer should be well warned to stay away, but I think the more open-minded viewer might admire the film, probably more for its voyeuristic qualities than anything else. Mike Leonard March 05.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Caroline Ducey
DVD ~ Guillaume Depardieu
DVD ~ Kieran O'Brien
DVD ~ Anaïs Reboux
DVD ~ Petra Morzé
on 
