The Principles of Lust_720p(480P)

source: The Principles of Lust

Moviecut—The Principles of Lust

This movie felt to me like the cinematic equivalent of falling flat on your face into a tray of quail eggs. They tried to be 'arty' but in the end they just had a load of egg on their face. Utter pretentious rubbish.

Regardless of others viewers' outrage, I thought this wasn't a bad movie - OK yes there are some graphic scenes, but not many of them. At worst the orgy scene probably didn't need to be as graphic as it was, but it still was important to the plot and did add authenticity to the theme being explored. "The Principles of Lust" is a story about Paul, a struggling writer who discovers a great gal and her son - the instant family. But a chance meeting with Billy has provided him with an avenue into an extreme, morally ambiguous world. For the writer in him (or simply for the fact he is a bored human) this indulgent world appeals to him, causing conflict in his "normal" boring life. A number of reasons why this film fails is given in other reviews, but I wonder if they have simply missed the point? To me, the movie explores two paths in life many of us can have access to, the more common (but boring and responsible) family life, or the "opposite" world of indulgence and chaos that has excitement at every turn. Paul must decide what he wants, what he values the most, before the chaos of one life consumes him whole and he loses any chance of getting back to "normality". I think the movie does a pretty good job exploring this theme through Paul's character. The movie also does a good job with Billy - rather than being the Devil as some have suggested, I think there is much more decency in the guy than is given credit for, even though he is more than a little lost and crazy. It would have been uncomfortable watching this in a movie theatre, but at home you can ponder the more graphic scenes without worrying what others think of you. If you allow this movie to be an exploration of a theme (visual literature) rather than the more mundane "visual entertainment", it becomes better than what some viewers have given it credit for.

Saw this tonight and felt obliged to look up this film online, its apolitical kitchen sink drama for the naughties - or noughties, or whatever - but its more than kitchen sink, its Shakespearian with its symbolism. Poor Britain, it has descended into lad-ism and *, gone mad between temptation and boredom, the sickness of newsfeed represented by shocking violence, irresponsibility and real games. I'm seriously impressed with the writer who got all this into the script, I "got it" Its not for the faint hearted, a lot of things aren't, but if you're a player, or want to be - well you might be surprised what actually goes on. I hope to see more from this director.

Granted the Principles of Lust is patchy, but it's nothing like as bad as you would conclude from other user reviews. It pushes at the boundaries, challenges the viewer with explicit images you would never expect to see even in an 18-cert movie, but does also say a lot about relationships in the process. Paul and Juliette's instant attraction and failure to communicate effectively echoed much of the love-hate nature of real life relationships in my experience, right down to the closing shots where love and bitterness combine while Juliette's son looks on, uncertain. Secondly, Paul's uncertainty about himself and his status as a writer speaks volumes - and thereby he represents the vast majority of us. Ultimately, do we know what we really want? Maybe we are all drawn to the dark side but are afraid to admit it, even to ourselves? So from my perspective, bravo to Penny Woolcock for making this film, which inevitably will polarise its audience - but remember its nod to Fight Club, and the fact that it is adapted from a novel by Tim Cooke. It's hard to imagine a feistier adaptation than this.

The problem I had with the film was its approach. It was ultimately boring TV. It is as if it had no direction in it whatsoever. It's as if the camera is just picking up some kind of reality TV. The story starts in a typically pedestrian way, a struggling writer struggles to write, just like the writer of the story must have, with some sort of inner conflict, confusion etc, he meets a girl. Our tormented soul encounters a beautiful woman who helps the protagonist come to a sort of realization which ultimately opens the floodgates to more confusion and he keeps meeting his bad guy friend who holds him back from being with the girl. This method is guaranteed to put you to sleep in the first two minutes. Then there's the voice-over. If they can't tell a story properly, why bother. Don't add voice over, If they can tell a story for film, they should just go and work in Radio. Then there's the "introspective shot" which features the main character staring into space for a good minute. How pretentious can it get without moving anywhere? This has been done many times and also by wannabe film makers and students who don't know what else to do. Gratuitous shots which were there for no reason, ordinary choices and silly angles, OK, is that all? Nothing new or inspiring, it's total cheese. Better watch something else I think. Also as for the couple, do they really want us to believe that She would go out with him? That's totally implausible! The film irritated me as there is so much out there to watch and this was just a waste of time. This is a Slice of Life that is more uninteresting than real life. All the acting is wooden. But Marc Warren is Excellent in Hustle and he seems to shine in all he does so I wonder who's fault it is with this film? Marc Warren's character was interesting but he needed a bit more. Sienna is okay but just a bit too wooden. Newman is a fine actor but I didn't like his character and I think he was badly cast also, I just didn't care this time. The orgy scene is derisory. Enough said. When the film finished I was left with a feeling of 'So What?'. Why oh Why make boring films trash. Is it because someone thought they could and didn't stop to think if they should? This film is uncreative and badly directed, if there was any direction involved that is. The best thing was the music track at the end which I did like, but that didn't make up for the rubbish TV-trash film.

I am surprised so many people really hate this film. I thought it was quite brave in the way it approached its subject matter and for me it took me down a different grittier path to the sterile world of the ordinary polished British film. I never really knew where this was going which again I enjoyed (you can plot the direction of a Richard Curtis film after fifteen minutes) and it left me thinking about why other films don't do this. It was by no means ground breaking and the characters were unpleasant but then so was Travis Bickle. It had some strong scenes but on the whole it didn't quite hold together. Marc Warren was the best thing in it and I would probably watch most films with him in. Could have been better but still gave me some nice surprises which I can't say about many British films.

This hypersexual hyperviolent film winds up addressing serious issues perhaps in spite of it self and its writer-director Penny Woolcock who was present at the screening I saw along with female lead Sienna Guillory at the Toronto Film Festival. Paul, a would be writer, starts a primarily sexual relationship with Juliette including carefree intimacy in public which gives Paul the sense that he is living life on the edge. Also in his life is Billy, the apotheosis of the edge and a good stand in for The Prince of Darkness. Ultimately Paul must address the difference between observing life and living life and having a fantasy vs. living a fantasy. Do things have a point or are things the point in themselves? This film is strong enough to not provide answers. For those who have asked the question, Ms. Woolcock replies that the bare-knuckle children show that Billy is always moving on to a higher level of outrageousness.