Negara I think this movie is in fact an article or an essay on sexuality in the film maker's point of view. It all seems what was turned into a dialog by force was in fact parts of an essay she should have written , or she has and then chopped it up into chunks and fed it into the mouths of the lead/only characters. There are no emotions , except when the female lead tries to look sad (when she's not sleeping while being penetrated).I just don't know why , instead of writing that article she has made this film? Why do the lifeless words have to be accompanied by such images? Oh and if we do have to watch these images and they don't have to be credible or plausible in any way , then why is this not pornography? Surely it's as/more offensive? Why does this kind of movie get labeled as ART and then pornography is obscene? I'd much rather have watched porn.

lastliberal 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.

EVOL666 I know that Breillat has a lot of big fans - personally I've only seen FAT GIRL, which I thought to be promising, but ultimately failed by what I felt to be a "tacked-on" ending that felt out of place with the rest of the film, and only seemed included to add an extra bit of shock-value to an otherwise solid film. ANATOMY OF HELL is another film that is somewhat interesting, but seems to lose itself in it's own "contemplative-ness".A woman (Amira Casar), who obviously has severe feelings of self-loathing, meets a gay man (porn "legend" Rocco Siffredi), when Rocco enters a bathroom where the woman has just cut her wrist with a razor-blade. Rocco takes the woman to a doctor to get fixed-up, and she decides to blow Rocco on the walk home. She is apparently intrigued by his ability to bust a nut with her in this fashion, being that he's gay and all - so she pays him to come over to her place for a few nights to "display" herself for him and to have lengthy discourses about the disgust and/or awe that men feel for female genitalia. Rocco's input in said conversations comes from a somewhat unique point-of-view, as initially, he is repulsed by vaginas in general, and therefore can speak freely and honestly about the topic. But invariably, his curiosity of the organ gets the better of him, and the two begin some strange "explorations", including rock-dildo insertion, used-tampon water drinking, and vaginal rake insertion - all culminating in feelings of near-obsession on Rocco's part, and his realization of what all straight guys the world over have always known: as great as pussy is - it really is the root of all of our problems.I applaud Breillat's willingness to tackle "touchy" subjects, and to do so on film with graphic, voyeuristic views into her character's lives - but just as with FAT GIRL - I felt that the film was a relatively interesting concept that just didn't have enough "substance" to sustain it as a full-length film. The performances were solid, and I felt that Rocco especially did a good job as the conflicted gay man who has become enthralled with the hoo-ha. But again, I don't really see what the real point of the film is, other than to state the obvious - men and women will never understand each other, and most of this is due to our conflicting views on sex and sexuality...6/10

emdoub Warning - spoilers herein.The good thing about Breillat (the director and author of the book this is based upon) is that she's not at all squeamish about looking at the dark side of sexuality.On the other hand, her view of sexuality is pretty dark. Themes in this movie include the general hatred of women that men feel and the repulsiveness of female genitalia. The main male character, at the end, feels that he's found total intimacy with a woman whose name he never learns.Lots of nudity, male and female. Genetalia closeups, including insertion (but not intercourse). A hatchling being crushed, a group of young boys playing 'doctor' with a prepubescent girl, garden tools being used for (simulated) insertion, lots of menstrual blood, discussion of the sexual advantages of young boys over women - pretty strong stuff. The dialogue is even worse, in a way, mostly exploring the awfulness of women. If you can handle all of that, you'll get some insight into how Catherine Breillat views the relationship between the sexes. Just be prepared - that view is pretty dismal.