Good concept, poorly executed.

best movie i've ever seen.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

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.

A non-linear film scattered with segments of an interpretation of the "Adam and Eve" story from the Bible.The "Adam and Eve" portion of the film was pretty good (I would say better than most fairly straightforward takes on the story), however, I felt during the movie that the inclusion of the story was a little trite and irritating. There's even a moment when the Eve character looks directly at the camera (accusingly). I could have done without it, though I might have enjoyed it as a separate student film-type venture.The individual segments are very good.My overall feeling on the film is that it is often melodramatic and humorless, and left me with the impression that the director thinks very highly of himself. I would use many portions of the film as examples of exactly what NOT to do as a director.

Mike Figgis is an innovative director. This film was made before his other, more daring movie, "Timecode" in which he worked with a split screen in which the action could be seen happening at all times in all four sections. This film is also full of symbolism that will elude viewers. We don't think the director wanted to lose, no pun intended, the audience. The action in this film is seen through the eyes of Nic at different stages of his life. As the movie opens, he appears in the form of a child Nic and he makes another visit at the end of the movie, perhaps to watch our reaction. The child has intelligent eyes; he appears to be looking at our soul, or perhaps he is telling us this was his own story. The film that doesn't follow a linear narrative. Mr. Figgis composed the incidental music. He also includes well known piano pieces from composers like Beethoven and Chopin that plays well with the images on the screen. The real coup of the director was to employ Benoit Delhomme as the cinematographer of this droll story that follows Vic from childhood. Mr. Delhomme photographs the natural locations with such care that it might prove a distraction for the viewer.Some interesting actors were engaged to give life to this sophisticated look about the loss of innocence. This is a sensual movie that relies on the openness in which the director wanted to show. Julian Sands is Vic, the young boy of the story, now an adult and a film director. Saffron Burrows is seen in a double role; she is a ravishing woman! Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays Vic as a young man. Kelly MacDonald is seen as Susan. Hanne Klintoe and Femi Ogumbanjo are seen as Adam and Eve as they are placed on the garden of eden and when they are thrown out from it after having taste the forbidden fruit. John Cowey is Vic as a child in a non speaking but highly effective part. Rosie DePalma, a Spanish actress with an amazing face, is seen as a blind woman in a riveting scene.Like it or not, Mike Figgis is not a director to dismiss easily because he is an original.

It's not often I use the term "tripe" to describe a film, but it's one of the less ugly terms that leapt to mind after watching this crap-fest. It was all I could do to finish watching, and my first words once credits began to roll were "my God, they actually paid thousands and thousands of dollars to make that mess." By my reckoning, this flick's bloated 106 minutes could have been trimmed to a far less fingernail-itching 80 minutes, had someone in the cutting room come to the realization that nobody needs to stare at a car stereo for 30 seconds or the exterior of a house for 55 seconds.I know, I know, throwing together overwrought soundtracks, "new" camera angles (which become OLD after the dozenth time utilized), sepia-toned scenes, and dialogue so muted it requires subtitles constitutes "art." But in my little world, an "art" film that defies enjoyment isn't worth a whole heck of a lot.Performances were terrific, in as much as they could be, given the material. Julian Sands and Jonathan Rhys Meyers were particular stand-outs. Sadly, they couldn't make this boat float.In a nutshell? This film leaves you hanging, waiting for . . . something. Waiting for a spark to light it up, give it some point, some purpose. Waiting for something to drag it from artsy, self-indulgent rubbish. That something never comes.