It's suprisingly flowing and technically flawless, which makes it a very pleasant viewing. It probably was very provocative during the time it was made, but nowadays it fails to be some kind of an extreme cinematic experience. It's suprisingly not-artistic, too. 16.2.2011

Could've used some tits to balance out the dongs. Seriously, though, the modern score that came with this probably made me like it much more than I would have normally. I found it to be very arty, yet not in a repelling way.

Even by today's standards, it's explicit enough to merit the description of arty gay porn. Look past the novelty value, however, and you'll find that it's a work of some substance.

#573

542

485

I usually hate when people describe things as pretentious but this movie is the definition of pretentious. It's so fucking bad, I can't believe anyone likes it.

A unique, daring and provocative experimental art film about a couple of gay prisoners. The artistry is undeniable but the film seems to have been a very personal endeavour and it really does nothing for me.

Serious homoerotica. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH PUKE RETCH SWANDIVE OFF 20-STORY BUILDING ECCHHH

# 602

As a homosexual who spent most of his life in prison, it's not surprising that Jean Genet would make a film about homosexual longing in prison (and authoritarian suppression of it). Some of it is really lovely... the ways in which the prisoners communicate is a poetic representation of forbidden love. But a lot of it is kind of silly, or maybe the subject matter just makes me feel that way. I kept thinking of ways that I would make it better (and I don't just mean editing out all the wang).

Holly crap.