Just so...so bad

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

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.

Disgustingly dull movie about some selfish, self centred individuals. If it had concentrated on the themes of abuse, bullying, alienation of the lower classes and subculture, it might have had something to say. It didn't. Its lost in the vapour of its own pretentiousness. Unnecessary graphic orgy scenes. Yes they are meant to be metaphoric, but you know, it could been done with a little more enthusiasm, which the whole film lacks. Utterly contrived. All the actors should be shamed for the exploitation that this movie got from them. All this from a female director. What a waste of time. Who was this aimed at? what was its goal? Totally misguided. Badly filmed. No creativity in editing. Nothing.

I watched this film primarily as a fan of Sienna Guillory. To be honest, she was the only thing worth hanging around for, the film became so boring at stages I felt myself drifting off to sleep. It feels incredibly long, especially once you reach the end of the movie and realise not a whole lot has actually happened. It doesn't feel original (the same ideas have been dealt with in countless better films), the acting was hardly top notch, and the characters were thoroughly unlikeable and unoriginal. Unless you're really into these types of films, or you have a *really* strong fascination with one of the actors involved, I wouldn't recommend it. You're not missing much.

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.