Opiniones de usuarios

ANATOMY OF HELL is a brooding and vulgar scrutiny of the base nature of Human Sexuality. Catherine Breillat attempts to blend a thoughtfully philosophical film with the shocking details hardcore pornography, and falls far short of the mark. I did not have as much of a problem with the disturbing sexual images, as I did with the absurd dialogue. Nobody talks like this, and it carried the film beyond pretension and into preposterousness. The plot is straightforward, yet odd. A woman visits a gay nightclub, and attempts to slash her wrists in the toilet, however her motive is never revealed. She is rescued by a man who passed her on a stairway in the club, and later she asks the man if she may buy his time for the next several days while she reveals herself to him during her most private moments. What follows is a series of turgid and sophomoric discussions which attempt to elucidate the various differences between Men and Women. Even if these two individuals were more articulate and believable, the director does not show us why these characters are worth our attention. What enduring truths could this gay man possibly have to say about masculinity, and why should we care about the observations of this obviously troubled young woman? ANATOMY OF HELL demonstrates our animal nature as sexual beings in exacting detail, however the opaque reflections of the two central characters ring false, and deaden the overall impact of the work. Many would welcome a cinematic journey in which honest philosophical insight is injected into the very artificial and contrived genre of pornography, but ANATOMY OF HELL is neither honest nor insightful, but only salacious.

I am a great fan of Catherine Breillat. I have seen many of her films now and have enjoyed each and every one. She is an interesting film maker, always provocative, always prepared to push the boundaries of cinema. 'Anatomy of Hell' tho left me somewhat bored. It seems to me that with each new film, Breillat is becoming ever more compartmentalized. Here, her mission is to specifically explore the female sex organ and the affect this may (or may not have) on the male sexual and emotional psyche. The problem is, since she's chosen such a narrow subject (no pun intended) to examine, there really isn't enough material here to sustain an entire film ... even one with a brief running time as this (approx 80 mins).

Another downside also is that the film is totally reliant on the 2 leads, and frankly, Siffredi is just not up to the task. On the other hand, as always, Breillat casts an interesting female lead. Amira Casar, with her porcelain white skin, her voluptuous curves and her pitch black hair certainly holds ones interest. I get the feeling Breillat, when making the female casting choice, looks for younger and more glamorous versions of herself -- you'll rarely see a blonde.

There are the trademark 'pluses' of Breillat in this film tho. Her thoughtfully conceived set design for example ... her minimal editing .. sparse use of lighting. These all add up to good story telling techniques in my book. But alas, there is just not enough substance to the narrative to make this a good film.

I really do wonder where she is going to go from here ... ?

Anatomy Of Hell, is one of those films where the vision of its creator is so specific, that all characters and situations exist purely to illustrate the auteur's theory. You may argue that this is true of any film, but in this case, if you're not either fascinated by the filmmakers perspective or find some truth in what they are saying, you will doubtlessly dismiss this film as an obscure, academic exercise given the lack of dimension beyond Catherine Breillat's singular focus.

It's focus, specifically is the attraction/revulsion men share for the nuances of the vagina. I would say 'and female sexuality in general', but that's not really case. Over the course of four consecutive evenings a man repulsed by all things vaginal, is paid to observe a series of vaginal revelations in great detail, by woman he meets in a nightclub. His gradual acceptance of her physical dimensions causes a new 'awakening' of intimacy, that he is unable to admit to or ignore.

Interesting, but I found Catherine Breillat's perspective for want of nuance, though both sexes are presented, but I found her vision more provocative than insightful. Her decision to portray the man, for all intents-and-purposes, as a homosexual who's preference was determined not by his attraction to men, but revulsion of women, dubious and needlessly self-persecuting.

Most people who criticise this movie are coming from two angles

They found it offensive, or They didn't 'get it'

In contrast, I simply believe that this is a bad movie. As in, the artistic decisions made by writer/director Catherine Brelliat are detrimental to the film.

First up, don't believe the hype. It's not that offensive. In fact, I've never seen a movie try so hard to be 'confronting' and 'controverial' and failing so badly. Brelliat clearly wants to shock and upset her audience, with plenty of explicit depictions of oral sex, wrist slashing and the like, but she goes overboard in this respect. The scenes are so explicit, constant and in-your-face that the audience becomes numb to them. This makes scenes like the 'lipstick' and 'hair-gel' moments come across as silly rather than shocking.

And the movie is certainly not erotic. It's full of that cold, passionless 'realistic sex' so favoured by the European art-house.

Where the movie really fails is in the plot, acting and dialogue. Brelliat casts Italian porn star Rocco Siffredi and actress Amira Cassa in the leads, but bungles this horribly by giving Siffredi all the important scenes and dialogue. We're treated to him mechanically reciting some impossibly pretentious rubbish while the more accomplished actress Cassa does little but lie down with her legs apart for most of the film. Again, this is more likely to trigger some guffaws rather than the philosophical discourse Brelliat was hoping for.

And the plot, such as it is. Our hero can overcome his homosexuality by embracing his combined love and fear of the female genitalia. Or something. The idea that homosexuals are actually repressed heterosexuals and can be 'cured' is both ridiculous and offensive. Being a hardcore feminist doesn't give Brelliat the right to spout homophobic garbage.

So, stupid plot, woeful dialogue, wooden acting, and explicit scenes so over-the-top you end up sniggering. Anatomy of Hell is a terribly wrong-headed and unintentionally hilarious film that even devotees of hardcore art-house cinema should avoid.

In case you were under the illusion that interaction with other people, and that any attempt to find love was a worthwhile endeavor - please see this movie - it will clear that up right away.

In case you ever thought that sex was fun, interesting or life-affirming, see this movie.

This wonderful gem of a film shows how sexuality is, in fact, not an expression of joy, love - or even hormones. Rather, sex is shown for what it truly is - a war between the sexes - best engaged in grimly, humorlessly and with an unending tirade of post-modern deconstructionist invective.

Thank you Ms. Breillat for showing me the way. Now, go play in traffic.

first i have to say that i have never been taken in by this talk of innate or inherent characteristics of men and women etc. i find that way of thinking to be a trap for fools. this film was very heavy on these sort of ideological constructions. almost from the first few scenes where she tells the guy in the gay club that he went downstairs just to get sucked because that's what men do etc... like all men. from there it gets worse... once the female character gets the guy to watch her she starts laying on these very thick knee jerk pseudo psychological feminist interpretations of why men feel they have to oppress vaginae etc. enough so that it was difficult to tell if it was a critique of men or just misogynist gay men. was that the point? are all men misogynist homosexuals in essence?

of course the worst element was that both characters where overwhelmed by what i call bourgeois angst. meaning that these characters sensibilities where dictated by the fact that they were well to do and had such leisure time to engage in frivolous idiotic behavior.....like ideologically constructing pseudo psychological feminist interpretations about why misogynistic gay dudes want to oppress vaginae. the fun part of the film was thinking the bourgeois gay dude totally deserved it.... like 'aha jerk'!! therein though lies the trap of this film.... i felt that the misogynistic gay dude was only that way because the film constructed it so...like a self fulfilling prophecy, which was a key element of the film.

so yes this film was aptly titled but maybe not in the way the filmmaker intended. though if this was exactly what the filmmaker was going for (i doubt it)... i would have to give some credit here maybe for a good trick to play on the audience that the filmmaker must loathe. a similar phenomena can be seen in P. Voerhovens 'the Fourth Man'..... equally nasty!!

This is an extremely difficult film to watch, Certainly, I appreciated seeing it alone. It is not and experience I would wish to share in a theater.

Daniel Day-Lewis may "drink your milkshake," but I doubt very much if he would partake of the woman's (Amira Casar) tea made with a used tampon, and offered to the man (Rocco Siffredi) as a means of bonding. It gives "drinking the blood of my enemies" a whole new meaning.

Catherine Breillat has certainly pushed the envelope with this film about men and women and men's hatred and fears of women. There is really nothing erotic about this film; it is provocation meant to shock and awe.

That may be what is needed in the discussion, but it certainly takes a strong person to observe and think.

The Woman hires The Man, who happens to be gay, and can therefore be more objective (?) to observe her over four nights and comment on what he finds objectionable about women. The love/hate/fear between men and women is discussed and played out in a way I have not seen before, but in such a way that it really made me think. I believe that is Breillat's objective, and she certainly achieved it.

It is not meant to be erotic, and it is not pornographic, although is ostensibly has real sex included, but is, shall we say, meant to provoke discussion.

This was the first movie I saw from writer/director Catherine Breillat. I liked it so much that I also saw Romance, and A real young Girl. I'm looking forward to Fat girl, and 36 Filette which I've heard good reviews on. The DVD for Anatomy of Hell has an interview with Catherine Breillat that I thought was very interesting and I highly recommend watching it right after the movie. Anatomy of Hell focuses on a women {Amira Casar} paying a homosexual man {Rocco Siffredi} to watch her in her home during her most private moments. It contains graphic sexual material but in a learning context. The woman's character seems to want to take the shame out of being a women by showing a man {who is disgusted by women} her most feminine self. By doing so they connect on a very raw level. I enjoyed the movie. If you like Catherine Breillat's particular form of artistry you may like some of her other movies as well.

No point to this "shocking" film at all! Director has just been speaking to us saying wanted to extend her previous film Romance to look at the female sex (the actual anatomy). So no motivation to make a good film then nor any desire to include any of the core ingredients to make it watchable! Instead she desperately wanted to work with Rocco again and go over one more time an exploration of women but this type anatomically. This just sounds like someone who has been dumped and needs to get back with her guy and relive the feelings again. How this series of images (I refuse to use the word 'film') ever got funded and produced is beyond me. Don't listen to the Emperors New Clothes Brigade saying it is a work of art like Baise Moi (weak film) or Irreversible (very good film) - just watch Irreversible again...

In her latest film Catherine Breillat takes a brave step. She couples porn actor Siffredi with talented youngster Amira Casar in a controversial story about the fear of the women in her most pure form. The idea concept is fascinating, but the result obnoxious. The dialogue between the leading actors is meant to be intellectual but by trying to hard it just gets on your nerves. I never got interested in the problems that Siffredi and Casar obviously trouble and after an hour I didn't even care anymore. At it's worldpremiere at the filmfestival of Rotterdam Breillat asked the audience to vote between the highest and the absolute lowest on our ballots. I had no trouble doing this at all.

The only thing good about this movie was the review someone left on here some years ago, which described the main characters as going through what they refered to as "bourgeois angst". I still laugh about it and think about it a lot to this day.

Having seen this thing I have the desire to comment, but since I believe it was made only as a self indulgent vehicle to shock, anger, provoke, and create controversy, it's very difficult to comment without sinking to the level of the creator of this thing.

While watching it I felt two things: boredom and anger. Boredom because she shows us nothing we haven't seen before. If you want to see misogyny and Rocco's penis he's done dozens, possibly hundreds of better projects with much more interesting dialogue. I felt anger too. Yes, because I allowed myself to sink to her juvenile level for a few moments, but mostly because I was thinking, 'People are getting slaughtered in Sudan, they're drowning in the mud in Haiti. There's a world friggin AIDS epidemic. And this douche bag was given money to make this?'

What angered me even more was that I spent $9 to see it. I'm really as terrible as she is. I knew what I was going to see.

I was fortunate enough to attend the world premiere of this film at the 2004 Rotterdam film festival in The Netherlands. Of all the films shown, this was the one most sought after for viewing.

The Director and two stars of the film answered questions after the movie and I got to meet Rocco in person. He is taller than I would expect. Many people brought porn for him to sign.

Anyway, film was very interesting. I liked the conflict between the woman and the gay man. Both had strong convictions about life and held to their guns. Rocco did a great job showing his emotions and the sex scenes were memorable, even crude at times. It is frightening how we as an audience could relate to them though.

Amira Casar was stunning. I could not keep my eyes of her during the whole movie. And yes, she is just as beautiful in person. Overall the movie was provocative and interesting staying true to form in regards to French Cinema.

Many people asked Catherine Breillat why she would cast Rocco Sifreddi (The number one male porn star in the world) for the male lead. Her answer,"Directors look for the most beautiful women to star in their films. I cast the most attractive men!"

It is too easy for "artistes" who want to be considered as such to do things that are confrontational and provocative and little else. Local examples of still "art" that made the headlines here that I can think of were "Tissues after a bowel motion" (the description is obvious) and "Virgin in a Condom" (a dashboard size figure of St Mary enclosed in a condom). This collection of moving images is pretty much in the same category. Does the writer/director of this have anything valid to say? Not really. Maybe that some men are misogynists (and some women have the same attitudes about men)? Well I think there are better ways of presenting that. At the start the woman goes into a toilet and starts slashing her wrist with a razor blade - people who do that are mentally ill. And the fantasy scene of the man of her slashing her neck with the razor blade indicates he is too. Thereafter what follows is of little surprise. In all a pretentious and unpleasant waste of celluloid, time and money.