Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

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

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

dragokin At a certain point i started wondering what Slavoj Žižek actually wants with this movie. It is clear that he is a philosopher and psychoanalyst, but without doubt he craves our attention. His narrative is rooted in Lacanian analysis and this is where my issues start.To quote Bryan Magee and his book The Story of Philosophy: "...when these complicated sentences were unraveled and analyzed, they often turned out to be rhetorically hollow, saying something only vaguely focused, or perhaps saying nothing at all, or else something trivial, or false, or self-contradictory."Therefore,i regard The Pervert's Guide to Cinema as a persiflage on the topic of cinema and its influence on our thoughts. Even philosophy is not spared of fashion. This is why Slavoj Žižek might claim to be a Stalinist and there would be people listening to what he might have to say. And he surely enjoys our discussion since it keeps him afloat until the next lecture.

Stefan Magometschnigg (stefanmago) An old intellectual talks about what he considers art in movies. You get your Hitchcock, your Chaplin, your Bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies. To disguise that he has no clue what is going on in cinemas these days, he throws in The Matrix.But it's not only the same lame film-as-art speech all over again. This speech is reduced to outdated psychological platitudes: it-ego-super ego, anal phase, sexual insufficiency. It is garnished with the cheesy effect of having Zizte edited into the movies he is taking about. For someone who is supposed to know much about movies, his own is, cinematographicly speaking: yeiks.To put it in Zizek's own words - I saw 5\-\!7 on the screen, last night, or in the words of a great movie maker:Mr. (Zizek), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you (two) points (only), and may God have mercy on your soul.

chubbybunny47 The person who wrote the review "enough with the sweating and spitting already" has no grasp of what cultural, literary, or psycho- critique is. He dismisses Zizek's interpretations because they don't seem "in line" with what the director originally intended. So What? The importance of a director's (or author's) intention is not important in critical theory. This is known as the author's "Intentional Fallacy" and should be avoided.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy A text or movie CAN be analyzed through a number of theories, many of which disagree with one another, as well as completely ignore the author's intention. This is the most fundamental idea of Critical Theory.Because of this, whoever wrote that wall of text wasted a lot of time and effort on insulting Zizek. In reality, anyone who studies theory would immediately discredit this guys opinion (I suggest you should too) as it is completely off point.That being said... If you are at all interested in Freudian, Laconian, or Kristevian discourse, this movie is a must. It connects these theories with popular film, making them much more palpable and enjoyable than simply reading or thinking about them.

george.schmidt THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) **** If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.Although I had no idea who Zizek was – he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese – with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet. Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB. There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes – even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault – then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate it.