Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

David Herkleman The problem with many of the reviews for this film on this site is they aren't approaching the film at its level. This is a very important thing to do. You don't go into an action film with melodrama expectations, for instance.When you watch an experimental film, that was also presented as an art installation utilizing multiple screens (not all visible from one place) playing simultaneously with their sound audible everywhere, you don't go in expecting a traditional narrative with clear character psychology and an obvious point, like we are trained to read from traditional film. Likewise, we shouldn't be going in expecting it to be a direct adaptation of Bataille's novella. Again, an experimental adaptation is nothing like a traditional adaptation. This film adapts it in transgressive intent, some generalized thematic concerns, etc. etc.Also, this isn't porn. I know that may be hard for some people to understand, but it's best to really understand what porn is and what it does to understand this. Porno, functionally, reduces to a minimum anything that gets in the way of lust, of sexual passion, of sexual gratification, etc. etc. This film does not do this, it maximizes these obtrusive elements. A fifteenish minute scene of a woman walking up stairs, the Zapruder footage, the general method of transitions between sexual encounters, these aren't building up the sexual appetite but attempting to subvert them. There is too much in way of interruption and motif for this to be a 'pornographic film'.I would also suggest reading the novella before watching this film. And that doesn't mean skim through it, or pseudo read it, taking care to only grasp the narrative structure and do little to grasp his motifs, themes, concerns, and overarching thesis. Once you understand what the book was doing and saying, or at least have an idea of what you think the book was doing and saying, you may have a better time approaching this film.The most important thing to keep in mind - it's an experimental art film, you don't approach films like this the same way you would approach blockbusters.Lastly, would people please stop putting up scene breakdowns? Not only is it reductive to the overall action, but they are also always incorrect and missing parts.

ifindthisimperative Having just recently read the novella "Story of the Eye" by Bataille... I wonder what exactly this film was referring to in Bataille's work. I am aware he did a reworking of his novella in the '40s that is different from the '28 original publication (the version I read). Perhaps this film references the later version? This film DOES cover two things that were in the original novella, and nothing more. 1) urine 2) sexI liked the book. I like pornography. I like films that push the audience to appreciate the work of the filmmaker or dare you to enjoy something "out-of-bounds." This film is a poorly crafted attempt at exploiting Bataille's name as a method of trickery to dupe unwitting cinephiles into suffering an arduous, content-less film. The film is un-arousing, and would shamefully and incorrectly fool viewers into thinking Bataille is a hack. Please remove this film from existence. Sincerely, X

ImmortalityBlues Okay, the sex scenes (read: the entire film minus one boring staircase walking scene) were well done (by porn standards), "classy", "artsy", etcetera. Having not read the novel yet I was hoping that there would have simply been more to this film other than pornography. I knew that the novel was supposed to be very erotic and unapologetically so, but is that all there is to it? Does the novel simply narrate a bunch of screwing and blow jobs? Here's how simply this film can be broken down, scene-by-scene, without leaving anything out: --Stock footage of a woman giving birth while the narrator reads a brief biography about Georges Bataille.--Two guys have sex.--Two women have sex.--Girl stumbles up flight of stairs for like 15 minutes while other women scream from somewhere.--Girl pisses on the floor/stares out filthy window.--Two girls and some guy have sex.--10-15 minutes of black screen and electronic noise.--The End.Perhaps if there were at least some interesting narration from the novel during this stuff it would have had more of an impact as a piece of compelling art rather than a slightly artsy porn flick. I guess I just need to read the book.

fury143 I went into this film not knowing what it was about. We had just finished seeing another independent film, which finished early and was great, so we went to this one since it was the next one playing. The ticket seller did say the movie was sexually explicit. In mind, that meant something like the deleted scene from Angel Heart. However, what we saw was hard core.It is kind of sad to see what some people think of as art these days. This was a porno movie plain and simple. Just think, I can edit a porno movie and splice it with a dance number and a breech birth and can it an independent film. People just get over your repression and buy a real porno movie at least you'll see a ---shot as well.