The Loss of Sexual Innocence

1999
5.4| 1h46m| R| en| More Info
Released: 29 April 1999 Released
Producted By: Summit Entertainment
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The story of the sexual development of a filmmaker through three stages of his life.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Summit Entertainment

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good
Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life
ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny
lastliberal The title is a bit wrong. It should have simply been The Loss Of innocence, as there was not always something sexual involved.It was a strange movie - an art film with absolutely beautiful music and charming scenery - but, it would definitely not be for everybody.I am really not a fan of non-liner stories. This one showed the director (Julian Sands) as age 6, 16, and currently. It jumped back and forth and had some really strange camera work at certain points that was very distracting.There was a lot of symbolism to interpret. I am sure that not everyone could understand the loss of innocence as two twins (the gorgeous Saffron Burrows) gaze upon each other for the first time.In the middle of the three stories was an unrelated story of Adam and Eve (Hanne Klintoe fully naked in her only film appearance). Watching them romp through the Garden of Eden until they ate the forbidden fruit (at least it was figs instead of an apple) and discover sex was a welcome distraction. It was funny as they innocently explored each other's bodies.I tuned in to see Kelly Macdonald (Trainspotting). I was satisfied with that, but not with the movie overall.
fedor8 The only thing that makes this painstakingly slow and utterly incomprehensible movie possible to finish in one go is the soundtrack. Otherwise, it's pretty much a typically European pretentious mess.Absolutely nothing connects to anything, at least not in a reasonable, valid or sufficient manner. Many characters, about which we find out almost nothing, are supposedly connected - but only the director knows how (and even that's questionable, since he was obviously on drugs).The dialogues are as scarce as I've seen anywhere before: this certainly doesn't help in clarifying things. The scenes with the black man and white woman playing Adam and Eve (so PC), and their subsequent exile from Eden by police with helicopters is straight out of Monty Python, except that this is a deadly serious pretentious drama and not a spoof.Is there anyone who can watch that scene in which Adam and Eve urinate (we are actually shown the urine leaving the top of his penis), and take that scene seriously? Most of the cast look like they walked straight out of a New York fashion show, and this cheapens the look of the movie substantially. Lars von Trier and his 95-ers must love this garbage.
miragenemo You are not captured to watch the movie in the first few minutes, just made confused by how the story unfolds and how it is presented to the audience. The movie jumped from story line to story line, just when you are getting interested in a part of the story, it shifts to something else. This is NOT Artful or Creative, just messy storytelling in a shoddy way! There does not seem to be one train of thought that wants to lure you into the story. Personally I would re-edit it so the story would not seem so confusing.Now I can see why it took Mike Figgis so long to find financing for this movie. The movie was so fragmented that it was pathetic. If he hadn't done Leaving Las Vegas this movie would NEVER been made! What a waste of creativeness by a director/writer and what a waste of talent for this movie.I think this script should have been left in a box somewhere to collect dust and fall apart!
steelsniper This movie tries WAY too hard to be artistic. the story is imbedded underneath so much confusion and symbology that its hard to tell what the director is trying to say.its as if the writers took 50 scenes and threw them into the air, and picked them up randomly, and that was the movie. the scenes look as if the editors didnt know how to cut a scene.nothing happens. dont waste your time. this is a 1/10 movie. the director is NOT an artist, but he definately wants to be one. he failed. he should not make any more movies. the end