The Principles of Lust

I was startled by how poor this film was.

All the male characters that were supposed to be "cool" laughably sported identical black leather jackets and stubble, looking every bit like middle class drop outs, but getting their kicks from hanging around illegal bare knuckle fights... the scenes in which the naughty posh boys were knocking about with psychotic hard-men bottling each other in a strip bar were extremely cringe-worthy and utterly unbelievable.

Also did anyone notice how much Marc Warren looked like Eddie Izzard in the orgy scene with that diamanté dog collar?! That chuckle was the only thing I enjoyed about the whole film.

Oh - the kid was an excellent actor too - really good.

Other than that it was RUBBISH!

This is the most god awful piece of crap movie that i've ever seen. I saw it at the Sundance film festival and nearly walked out. Most if not all the audience felt the same way I did. Way too many orgy scenes, children fighting in cockfights and the main character has a revelation of what he wants like 5 minutes before the movie ends, oh how great for you, but why should we give a s***? The characters are boring and mediocre and you knew you were screwed by the opening credits with a man swimming naked, utterly useless, which was most of this film. It could have been cut down to a 3 minute film. If i had to sit through this movie ever again, i would need a vomit bag as this movie was nasty and it seriously did offend me.

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.

I found the philosophy of what this film was after very persuasive. Looking at the schism that forms in any artist serious about their work, and the agony of the personal choices that come out of sacrificing for one's work. The film looks at how artists make this choice. The characters are well defined and the acting is compelling. I felt the tension of the central character's choices palpably. The motivations behind the actions of each character were well exposed and added depth to what, in less able hands, would have resulted in inexplicable behavior. This central theme of choice, the choice of what type of life we pursue and the conflicts that emerge between desire for adventure and comfort are beautifully drawn in this 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.