The Loss of Sexual Innocence (1999)

People are voting emotionally.

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This is a one off for Figgis, and to call this movie confusing is a understatement. There are some beautifully poetic moments in it, but overall the film is a mess, where later on, it becomes way more confusing. I remember that toilet scene vividly with those nudie pornographic photos. I enjoyed seeing Kelly Macdonald at the stsrt of the film which starts off quite normally. She's really progressed as a great actress, but like the rest of the capably selected cast, she's wasted. From what I can make out of this, is Sands character (a new Figgis regular) growing up. He always has aspirations as a film maker. I must say this film is beautiful on a visual side, include some stark nudie shots of a young couple in their late teens (why didn't they just advertise). For the last half hour of film, which takes a tragic turn, I for one, was thankful here), as on the outskirts of an Islamic country, near the sea, the film crew accidentally run down a young blackie. AsI recall, it didn't end for Burrows, a sexy actress who I've really come to appreciate. On the visual side TLOSI it's worth the view, or for people who have morbid tastes. The film just has a lot of problems, but if you want to see something different, this is for you, but for Figgis fans, you should snub this one.

I really don't like giving this film a numerical rating. It strikes me as an experiment that has and will cause some viewers to think things that Figgis might not be happy to hear about. His film "Liebestraum" is one of my favorites, but he might find my interpretations of that one quite odd. So what I have here are a list of ideas which I think are suggested by parts of the film. As one reviewer here said, this is not a film about sex. The sex and the title are there to drag people in and to keep some of them watching. Parts of the film are certainly straightforward enough as in the case of little Figgis being treated horribly in a modern 'civilized' school gymnasium setting. The description of primitive people and how they trained (or still train..) their children to be killers and cannibals when it comes to members of other tribes that comes before the school sequence certainly tells you what's going on. Civilization hasn't come very far. However, apologists for both the cannibal tribe and the 'war on obesity'might have to think the 'apologies' over. (unless they are hopeless) When it comes to animals..the human one is one of the really low ones, especially when it's part of a group or a tribe. Of course the scenes with the characters most reviewers call Adam and Eve do in the end suggest South Africa during the apartheid period. The police and guns and dogs. The twins..are an easy part. However, not all twins are happy to be twins. (And certain cultures view twins in very vicious tribal ways..) The sequence in the desert could give a viewer something to think about when someone comes around asking for donations for starving desert tribes who wear turbans and paint themselves blue. The tribe kills the woman, one of the twins,because she offered to stay behind while the others involved in the 'accident' drove to notify the police. A child who should not have been running alone in the desert was killed by the reckless driving of a western man incapable of much thought. He's no better than the jerks who laugh at the incident involving the blind woman's seeing eye dog earlier in the film. There too the twin tries to help and is hit at by the blind woman trying to fend off the dogs in heat and maybe their counterparts. The twin is innocent but the members of the tribe think in numbers. They are incapable of any of the nuances human beings should after all this time be capable of. The reckless driver gets off free and is happy to leave the woman behind. Her boyfriend is a little upset. Of course we don't know who played the tribe in the desert... It's a nicely cynical piece of work. Sex is the least interesting thing in the movie. (This is from june of 'joejune'.)

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.

...Cathartic. Personal. Visceral. Human. Tense. Motivated movement. Deliberate, careful pace. Reactive. Hated or Loved. Transcendental.Not everyone will like this film. I'll venture further to say a lot of people will not like it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't give it a chance. If you like to look at beautiful art in a museum, everything from modern art to the more traditional painterly forms, see this film. If Miles Davis' Bitches Brew speaks to you, you have the capacity to enjoy this film. If you like films that highly affect you, see this one. However, if you are looking for something with a plain, spoon-fed storyline and theme, this is not for you. Or if you don't want to think (you just want to be numbly entertained), go see something else. But to dismiss it for any other reason or to walk out of it before it is over, is a travesty. Give it the benefit of the doubt. Let it say its piece. Like all great works of art, you have to look at it as a whole.The Loss of Sexual Innocence is a bold-faced rebellion against the way people normally appreciate films. It challenges you to feel deeply and search for meanings, just as we do in everyday life; just as it is our nature to do. This film is what you get from it. It is how you see it and interpret it. One person looks at a Velazquez painting and sees an old woman cooking. Another person looks at the same painting and sees the realism of the two fish on the plate and the translucent quality of the raw egg in the soup. And yet another person sees or feels the emotion on the woman's face, empathizing with her. Figgis' film has that capacity. Look at it with those kind of eyes; open-minded. Go with the feelings that it stirs up in you, whatever they may be. Search these feelings out, even after the film is over. A strong reaction from the see-er is the true artist's goal.It is exciting to have a film like this from Mike Figgis. After his more mainstream and widely accepted Leaving Las Vegas, this is a healthy validation for him. The Loss... is masterfully crafted. Every detail and brush-stroke is intentional and utterly important. It plays like a symphony to the senses with both visual and 'audial' recapitulations and cadences; an experience that stays with you.