Good start, but then it gets ruined

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The movie is wildly uneven but lively and timely - in its own surreal way

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The first short The Hand by Wong Kar Wai is in his classic style portrayal of melancholic love and eroticism, easily the best of the three. Soderberg's Equilibrium is an engaging black comedy that ends up to be almost surreal. But the last short by Antonioni is the one that makes the worst part of the film. I've never seen his films before but this was just lazy softcore porn and bad even at that.

'Eros' brings together three very different filmmakers, who are telling us, each in his own way, stories about love/lust/desire/dreams.The first segment (The Hand) is made by Wong Kar -Wai, with Christopher Doyle as cinematographer. It's a pure gem, gorgeous and intoxicating. Two very good actors: Gong Li and Chen Chang (the bandit from 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'). It's the Weltanschaung of Wong Kar-Wai, where eros is actually a mean to meditate about time: time that heals everything while not solving anything; time that's as illusory as happiness is; time that breaks any hope in the end, while showing you that it doesn't matter.I found the segment on youTube; unfortunately it has no subtitles, so if you aren't familiar with Chinese you are kind of lost. I will try to summarize the plot: a tailor sends an apprentice to one of his rich customers, who is a high-class courtesane in her prime; she has the sadistic impulse to humiliate sexually the boy. This creates a strange dependence of unrequited lust, that grows through the years, while the courtesane is gradually loosing her status. The rich patrons leave her, the means to keep her style are vanishing and she eventually becomes a prostitute of the lowest kind. The apprentice remains attached to her down to the end and puts all his erotic desire in creating a dress that substitutes for him the woman.Let's pass now to the second segment (Equilibrium), created by Steven Soderbergh. It's a different kind of an animal: a voyeuristic puzzle based on circular references. A guy (wonderfully played by Robert Downey Jr.) comes to the shrink to complain about an obsessive recurrence: a splendid woman appears naked in his dreams, bathing and dressing in front of him. The shrink puts the patient on the coach and makes him tell all details, while trying to live the dream by himself ! Eventually the patient falls asleep on the coach and the shrink leaves the room. The patient wakes up in front of the woman of his dreams: she's actually his wife and the dream was the visit to the doctor! Or the other way around :) As for the third segment (Il filo pericoloso delle cose - The Dangerous Thread of Things), made by Michelangelo Antonioni, it was considered by many reviewers as the weakest part of the movie. Actually the segment of Antonioni is exquisite: an erotic fantasy subtly suggesting the sagesse of women in these matters. And you cannot compare the three segments in any way; each one follows a totally different approach.

I don't know about you love fans but this movie to me is very boring. I don't know if it was too lousy or just plan out not good. The first one caught my interest about a young tailer who helps a rich women with her dresses. The second deals with Robert Downey Jr. having to discuss his problems with a voyeuristic psychologist about a strange dream he keeps having about a woman. And the third deals with two Italian used to be lovers dealing with their own problems. There were no interesting things in this movie. I thought it was just plan out boring. There was no action what so ever in this piece. Unless you are a fan of sitting and listening to crap like this than go on ahead and have a ball but I give this movie a grade F.

Wong's film seems to come from the same universe as In the Mood for Love and 2046, which does give you the feeling of been-there-done-that. But, still, it is beautiful and nearly as hypnotic as those two films. Soderbergh's film is slight, but highly amusing. Robert Downey Jr. and Alan Arkin are fantastic. Antonioni's segment is pretty worthless. It feels like European softcore art-porn. But, really, would it surprise anyone that his film is the least of this bunch? As far as cinematic history is concerned, Soderbergh shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Wong, and Wong probably not quite in the same sentence as Antonioni. But, let's face it, Antonioni hasn't made a good film in three decades. I'd still suggest watching Eros for the first two segments. If you can keep your curiosity in check, just shut it off before the third begins.