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.
"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.