Very Cool!!!

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

A woman hires a gay man to come to her house and watch her while she lies naked on her bed. Catherine Breillat makes films that are deliberately provocative and not necessarily of any value. What audience, I wonder, had she in mind when she made "Anatomy of Hell"? French intellectuals who like to navel gaze? Surely this appalling codswallop wasn't meant to be taken seriously? As you might guess not a great deal happens but Breillat wouldn't be Breillat if there wasn't some actual 'real' sex, (the fact that our hero is gay doesn't seem to stop him from getting down to business with our heroine). The rest of the time they sit and talk a load of old rubbish. Proof that women are just as capable of making bad 'dirty' pictures as their male counterparts.

Sorry, Director and writer Catherine Breillat, but this movie Anatomie De L'enfer is awful. This film shows the intellectual bankruptcy of an modern feminist. The symbolism in this art film nearly mean nothing, but a horrible movie made by a horrible and possible militantly disturbed person. Dramas like this that explore female sexuality in a clinical, bleak style and with unconventional explicitness are just self-hatred filth. This is depressing porn in my opinion. The movie opens with title cards telling us that it is a work of fiction and the lead actress had a body double. Wow, great way to ruin the film before it even started, by telling us that we're watching a movie. That would work better at the end pass the credits, not the beginning. Di This film is basically opens up with two characters, one female and one male who are complete strangers and come together to discuss and perform sex. It's too bad, the movie starts out with two random people giving each other oral sex that are not the main characters. The camera spent a few minutes on people, before moving on. We'll never see them or they will mention any more in the film past this point. There was no reason for them to be filmed. It was just a random porn scene. Anyways, we meet Amira Casar as the woman and Italian porn star Rocco Siffredi as 'the man' in a gay club. The girl is on her way to the restroom to slit her wrists with a razor blade because she's angry that none of the men are paying her any attention to her. Stupid woman, it's because they are gay. I have no clue why a gay man is representing all-men or a self-hating woman as all women. I only have a theory that she trying to get a gay guy horny for her nude body. The woman is obviously after male approval and into celebrating her womanhood; and she probably picked a homosexual to do it with because she knows that he will not become emotionally involved with her and remain nonthreatening. I also felt she wanted to be rejected by the man so she picked a gay man. She wanted confirmation on her self-loathing that she picked the man who hate her the most. The movie gives a camera shot of a clit surround by hair for a long time, follow up with a scene of Rocco as a kid trying to take care of a baby bird. The baby bird surround a nest is supposed to represent the vagina. When the baby bird dies, the boy stomp on it. Awful metaphor for his homosexuality, but interesting. What is the film trying to say? That men or gay men can't take care of children. Only women. That's deeply mistaken. I saw many fathers able to take care of their kids. Then the movie has the nerves to show child pornography. This is a no-no. I don't care if it's an art film, showing nude children is wrong! Somebody call 'To catch a Predator' on Catherine Breillat! There are lots of graphic close ups of private parts and various scenes involving a garden rake, and lipstick. Then there is the infamous scene dealing with menstruation. The movie is telling us that men are evil, because they are horrified by menstruation. First off, women hate and fear periods too. Some women are disturbed talking about semen, so does that make all women evil. No. Let's not forget urine or feces. Are people evil because they don't want to see urine or poop around? No. Let's not forget that everybody bleeds. Sorry, Catherine Breillat, you're mistaking, guys again. Ms. Breillat's only motivation by having these scenes is for shock value. The dialogue is stroppy, rigid and pretentious, with lots of references to feminine subjugation and male domination. It's actually hard to figure out what the director is trying to say in this film. The acting is passable, although I thought Siffredi was surprisingly worthy. Still, the characters are preposterous and boring. Breillat's use of tracking shots create a wonderfully dreamlike quality in the exterior scenes. The scenes of the raging ocean, in particular, are hauntingly stunning. The music is awful. The disco pop is annoying. I don't like how the movie unfairly portrays men as being lustful, violent idiots that women should throw rocks at. She also unfairly portrays women as martyrs who let themselves be victimized and revel in the dichotomy of brutal sex acts being both objects of desire and disgust. Still, I give the movie props for making me think and interpretation what she meant by the scenes. Whether the character wanted to have sex with Amira's character or not is left to be debated later. Anatomy of Hell is a hard film to watch and it's filled with images you're not likely to see anywhere else, even in pornography. The more conservative viewer should be well warned to stay away, but I think the more open-minded viewer might not like it, too. Dehumanization movies such as this have no baring for normal audience, unless you already depressed, or hateful. Unless you're curious about sex relations, or having sex issues. Don't watch.

Most people who criticise this movie are coming from two anglesThey found it offensive, or They didn't 'get it'In contrast, I simply believe that this is a bad movie. As in, the artistic decisions made by writer/director Catherine Brelliat are detrimental to the film.First up, don't believe the hype. It's not that offensive. In fact, I've never seen a movie try so hard to be 'confronting' and 'controverial' and failing so badly. Brelliat clearly wants to shock and upset her audience, with plenty of explicit depictions of oral sex, wrist slashing and the like, but she goes overboard in this respect. The scenes are so explicit, constant and in-your-face that the audience becomes numb to them. This makes scenes like the 'lipstick' and 'hair-gel' moments come across as silly rather than shocking.And the movie is certainly not erotic. It's full of that cold, passionless 'realistic sex' so favoured by the European art-house.Where the movie really fails is in the plot, acting and dialogue. Brelliat casts Italian porn star Rocco Siffredi and actress Amira Cassa in the leads, but bungles this horribly by giving Siffredi all the important scenes and dialogue. We're treated to him mechanically reciting some impossibly pretentious rubbish while the more accomplished actress Cassa does little but lie down with her legs apart for most of the film. Again, this is more likely to trigger some guffaws rather than the philosophical discourse Brelliat was hoping for.And the plot, such as it is. Our hero can overcome his homosexuality by embracing his combined love and fear of the female genitalia. Or something. The idea that homosexuals are actually repressed heterosexuals and can be 'cured' is both ridiculous and offensive. Being a hardcore feminist doesn't give Brelliat the right to spout homophobic garbage. So, stupid plot, woeful dialogue, wooden acting, and explicit scenes so over-the-top you end up sniggering. Anatomy of Hell is a terribly wrong-headed and unintentionally hilarious film that even devotees of hardcore art-house cinema should avoid.

Anatomy of Hell arrived in Australia in a time with a current state of rage against films featuring explicit sex. Ken Park banned, Irriversable and 9 songs slipped through the war zone. What is it about sex in films that causes such controversy. The main argument is that its porn, sexual acts to eroticses the audience, rebutted to its art, an exploration of humanities sexuality. Irriversiable examined the terrible repercussions and one mans war of retribution of a tragic rape. 9 Songs retrospectively showed a man's most cherished parts of a broken relationship; the love he made during sex. Another film Intimacy examined the wordless love affair of two people during speechless sex. There's subtext and a conversation to be had with these films.Anatomy Of Hell is slapped with controversy all over it. It's sexually explicit without a lot of sex. Sex is quite minimal, two very short sex scenes to be held. The explicit current running through Anatomy of Hell is it's exploration of one woman freeing herself from mens sexual over hold. The Woman invites The Man to her place for consecutive nights to explore her body. The Man in question is a misogynist gay man. Over the nights, their exploration of the female builds, with acts that draw the massive controversy it has attracted. The Woman wants to understand the anger men feel against women. Why they hate women and their constant need of power over them. It's no surprise actually she chose a gay man who loathes women. The Man struck with facing his demons head on.Anatomy Of Hell is director Catherine Breillat analyzing the meaningless of sex. The film is laced with ideas of feminism, misogynist, the female body and the power of the female genitals that empower and repulse men; the hell. Breillat wants to have a conversation with you, stuck as the voyeur of these two people. The deterring part is Breillat writes such a black and white perspective of both people's ideals on the opposite sex. Men are pathetic to The Woman and woman are repulsive to The Man. No middle ground to walk, just two polar states pulling away. Breillat's dialog is far from the poignant and symbolic level she aims, it's to didactic.The sexual acts themselves are at the heart of this film. Of the original argument, this is hardly porn, as nothing about this is erotic nor pleasurable to watch. Acts with garden tools and toys, and menstrual blood are hardly erotic, when Breillat take such a detached approach. Though you are the voyeur, your not a fly on the wall, your looking from a great distance trying to figure why they're doing this.What Catherine Breillat is trying to say with Anatomy of Hell has depth and there is a conversation to be had, but it's dull and banal; it's time to change the subject.