Eros (2004) watch online HD

What a treat! A film school in 104 minutes!

Forget what the detractors say about this. Most seem to think that none of it is erotic enough and few "like" the Soderbergh and Antonioni projects.

But you, dear viewer, you will know this as three explorations into how the eye creates the seductive impulse. And we have three masters, though I wish we also had Greenaway and Medem involved.

I assume that these three did not collaborate in any way. I also assume that the sponsors did not specify that the projects be erotic, rather that they explore what it means to be erotically engaged.

The first we see is by Kar-Wai Wong. His object of desire is Gong Li, who at 40 is still beautiful. She plays a prostitute who conspires to replace her old dressmaker with a young man. (The subtitles call him a tailor, to emphasize the tale that he spins.)

She engages his desire-driven imagination, which binds him to her and brings out his very best in terms of the dresses he creates. She weaves him and through the clothes, he weaves her. Toward the end, the image is polished with her ill and out of favor, and he still as obsessed and caressing a dress he made, moving his entranced hand inside it. It is his hand the title denotes.

At the very end, he tells a tale to his boss of his woman as back in the money, now fully his creation.

The second entry is amazing. Soderbergh is often capable of creating plots with circular reference. And since the very beginning, this notion of one reality creating another has been at his center. But this outdoes even "Full Frontal."

We have three dreams. One is the one we see first, a gauzy look through windows at an amazingly engaging scene: a beautiful redhead bathing and dressing. The dream starts as voyeurism through windows, but as is described later, our voyeur enters the dream as a participant. In the dream, he is on the bed dreaming.

Shift to a psychiatrist's office, where we meet the dreamer, played by Downey, one of our few folded actors. He is a clock designer obsessed with this dream. Over time, he is enticed to lay down and segue from talking about the dream to actually enter the dream. During this time, the psychiatrist begins his own voyeurism out the window.

Most reviewers saw this and thought the comic indifference was the point. Oh my. Their license to view films should be revoked.

As Downey dreams, we enter the third world, the third dream. He pulls a trigger suggested in the earlier segment and wakes into the dream where he is now married to his desire, and he goes to clock-designer work where his assistant is the same guy as the analyst, except he is the one obviously insecure.

All three worlds are set in the 50s. Which is the dream? Which is the source of pulling the desire into reality? Are dreams of desire cinematic or the other way around? Which of the paper airplanes connect?

The third project is widely dismissed as the obsessive sexual impetulance of an old, fading man.

The scene here is simple. A husband and wife have a spat. She is topless at first then puts on a transparent top as they go to a restaurant. There they briefly encounter another inhabitant of the beach resort where this is set. He visits this woman and they seduce each other, apparently a single event.

Later, the husband and wife are reconciled. Both woman happen to be nude on the beach, both seemingly in a sensual plateau. They encounter each other; more precisely the wife encounters the other asleep, casts a shadow on her while she stirs. They stare at each other silently. Neither, incidentally, is particularly attractive.

When the man and his affair begin, he has entered the "other" tower on the beach, after she wonders if he can stand her chaos, absolute chaos. Viewers seem to equate this with his famed trilogy about love from the sixties. Those were dumb films.

How could they forget "Blowup," an essay on how cinematic memory bends or even defines reality. And how he stretched that into wonderful folded space in "Beyond the Clouds."

You have to do some work here. You have to know that this is not about sex, or the erotic figure. Nor even anything at all having to do with examining a relationship. It is all about how perception defines the situation, moved erotically.

Guess no one want to do the work. But if you are interested in film, you'll want to view these three notions of where the eye of love sits. With Wong, it is in the present, Soderbergh in the remembered and Antonioni the expected.

I prefer Wong's world so far as experience. He even takes it as far as not having a script, but making up the movie as he shoots. Love should ideally be erotic, and the invention of that world should be one you coweave with your partner, dressing each other into the miracle.

But these other fellows have hypnotic appeal as well.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Antonioni is not able to direct a 30 min film. Why? The Dangerous Thread of Things deals with a couple trapped in a plain, tasteless life that are no longer able to observe, to feel, to digest the little, happy, natural elements of their lives.What Antonioni wants to show here is that women are passionate, wild , instinctual. Their nudity is not erotic, it's a kind of natural nudity, the original nudity of people lacking shame.Dancing naked on the beach is a kind of Dyonisiac ritual Nietzsche was talking about, the primitive, joyful way of celebrating life. The ideas are nice, he tried to do something great , but he didn't manage because there was not enough time to construct the characters, to make them mean something so by the end of the film we are left with a feeling of dizziness.On the other hand, i didn't like Soderbergh's segment at all maybe because i didn't understand it or maybe I'm trying to get in deep where there is only the surface.

Anyway, Kar-Wai's segment was the best of all three, absolutely wonderful. The story is rather sad(all Kar Wai's characters are melancholic) but the way he works with the camera and the music perfectly combined with the images proves what a great director he is. The scene in which the weaving of the dress is associated with lust, with the wish to penetrate both the mind and the woman's body, well that's Eros, that's how eroticism should be introduced in cinema. Kar Wai proves to be a great tale-or again.

One part brilliant, one part so-so, one part utter crap. Guess which one is which. OK, I'll help you out. In the order of appearance:

"The Hand" by Wong Kar-Wai is a solid piece of film-making, but nothing special. Let's just say the Master does not break any new ground with yet another short story of unrequited love. We've seen these characters before, they are not that interesting, and the story itself veers too far into melodramatic to my liking.

"Equilibrium" by Soderbergh is a witty, clever little nugget... and you won't soon forget an unorthodox shrink who indulges in a bit of voyerism on the side while treating his twitchy patient (a great appearance by Robert Downey Jr.)

The Whatever It Was Called by Antonioni is so bad, I could not believe my eyes. Well, unless you enjoy watching gorgeous girls writhing on a bed or dancing on the beach - naked. Oh, you think quite a few people would enjoy that? So did Antonioni. The whole thing looked like an extended male fantasy of a Maserati commercial. No characters or plot, not particularly interesting cinematography...It was just boring.

Bottom line, it was a strange idea to bring together three allegedly great directors on a single ticket, and it did not pay off. Go see it for the Soderbergh piece if nothing else. Wong Kar-Wai fans will be slightly disappointed, and Antonioni fans are beyond salvation.

"Eros" (2004) is the collection of three short films directed by Michelangelo Antonioni (segment "Il filo pericoloso delle cose"), Steven Soderbergh (segment "Equilibrium") , and Kar Wai Wong (segment "The Hand"). Each film explores the always exiting and mysterious subjects of love, sexuality, and desire.

My favorite is "The Hand" – a sensual, emotional, powerful and very sad story about a young tailor who put the years of unrequited love for a beautiful call girl in an exquisite dress he created for her. He knew the exact measurements from touch. This segment is so great that I am ready to buy a DVD just to be able to see it often. It is a brilliant work of art from one of the greatest working directors now.

Steven Soderbergh's "Equilibrium" is a funny duet between two excellent actors, Alan Arkin as a voyeuristic shrink and Robert Downey Jr. as his patient who has a reoccurring dream about a beautiful woman.

Michelangelo Antonioni's segment "Il filo pericoloso delle cose" aka "The Dangerous Thread of Things" has been called the weakest in the trio. Many posters call it garbage, the total waste of time, the soft –porn made by a man who "got old and got horny". I personally did not find it a waste of time and if the man at 92 wants to make a little film that celebrates beauty and femininity – so be it. I feel that Michelangelo's segment is much deeper than it seems - even on the surface it is very attractive to look at.

It's always a tricky thing to comment on these 'omnibus' films, where world-renown directors come together to make little films combined as one film. The two that are likely most well known to American audiences, of most recent as twenty years, are New York Stories (featuring Scorsese, Coppola, and Woody) and Four Rooms (Anders, Rockwell, Rodriguez, and Tarantino). None of those films are total masterpieces, due to the fact that there are always un-even bits by the filmmakers, even in the better segments. Eros is no exception, but I would argue that there has been some over-load of flack against the short co-written and directed by 90-something year-old Michelangelo Antonioni. His segment has been claimed by almost all the critics and reviewers (on this site and for the press) has been claimed as a waste of time, as total soft-core porn, the ideals of an old man wanting one last grip on his libido. I didn't find his segment to be a waste, although it is one of his stranger, more enigmatic films in his sixty year career, and it isn't as fascinating as it used to be.

The other two segments are little classics in and of themselves for the younger of the two filmmakers. Wong Kar Wai delivers a touching, sad romantic tale of a tailor's apprentice who has a curiosity about a woman who does something erotic with him on a first visit (hence the title of the segment, The Hand, though it's not as pat a term as might be imagined. The actors involved are all marvelous, and the style in how Kaw-Wai sets up his shots demands attention, despite it being unconventional. The acting is very natural, the music used comes in at just the right moments for emotional contact (you almost anticipate it, and when it comes, it's powerful), and the ending wraps the story up rather fittingly. It goes to show that Kar-Wai might be the most skilled at making romantic-dramas in China, or at least is the most popular.

Steven Soderbergh, likely around the time he directed the slightly off-putting Ocean's Twelve, concocted this sort of comedy of manners, as he says, "so I could have my name on a poster with Antonioni." It stars Robert Downey Jr. and Alan Arkin as a salesman and a psychiatrist respectively, and Downey's character is anxious about his job and, more importantly, about a woman in his dream. Arkin is hilarious in his role as a man who would much rather look out the window with binoculars at someone we do not see in the short. But his physical mannerisms, as Downey goes through his dream to confront himself (filmed in nice black and white, by the way), makes the scene all the more worthwhile. The last shots, jump cuts, of a paper airplane flying out the window are filmed with a fine touch of whimsy. There is also a solid, painterly use of blue in one particular part of the dream scene early on in the segment.

Then we come to Antonioni. First off, let one address the good qualities, or at least the fair, expectable qualities, that come with many of Antonioni's films. In a sense, he's hearkening back to his classic 'trilogy' (L'Aventurra, La Notte, The Eclipse), where a married couple is going through a crisis, and they spend a lot of time not saying anything to one another, and looking out at beautiful Italian landscapes and beaches. In a way, I almost wish this was a feature-length film as opposed to a more or less half hour short. I wanted to know more about these people, about what they do, or what they were doing or going to. But there seem to be two big flaws in the segment (the nudity didn't bother me- there were actually a couple of memorable shots, one of which just a woman's foot on a bed). One was with the music. Some have said that the film is Antonioni's closest trip to soft-core porn. While I would class his directorial eye and style miles above anything on after-midnight Cinemax, the music by Enrica Antonioni and Vinicio Milani is a complete contrast of the music more associated with the director's work, which is either spellbinding in it's atmosphere, or haunting with the usage of rock and roll. Here he uses the music, electronic and with preposterous lyrics, in the more 'erotic' scenes. The other flaw is that, because of the film's short length, there isn't enough time as usual to build up the enigmatic stance of the story. The climax involves the two lead women (one the wife, the other the stranger adulteress) completely nude looking at each other on the beach. While it is interesting to have this image open for interpretation, it is also frustrating in ways that weren't so in the endings to the other Antonioni 'human mysteries'.

I understood some of the implications, but I didn't get the sense of what was lost or what was gained or omitted like in the other two segments. Everything shot and acted looks sweet and tight and concentrated in the segment, still a technical pro, but what exactly is the point? Still, I would not have walked out during the middle of anything by Antonioni, and this, by default the weakest of the bunch, should be open to more interpretation than what Ebert described as "an embarrassment". I felt the eye and mind of an artist working still during "The Dangerous Thread of Things", and my only wish was that I could understand more than what I was seeing and experiencing. Perhaps his segment, like Kaw-Wai's and Soderbergh's, are left up to that interpretation for a purpose. I'll likely want to see all three segments sometime in the future, and maybe get a better take on what eluded me or what enticed me. But, at the least, I didn't leave the theater feeling entirely cheated.

Grade (averaged): B+

The initial concept for making this film was to offer three variations on the theme of love from three directors from three cultures. Or is the title 'Eros' more about the erotic than about love? Question unanswered by this triptych of minor works by some superb directors. The end result seems to be three streams of conscious thoughts looking for a reason to make it to the screen. With the brilliance of the three directors one would expect far more than the film delivers.

Wong Kar Wai presents the strongest of the three films in a dark story about a tailor who sublimates his desire for a courtesan (Gong Li) by making clothes for her - a 'servant' who finally reverses his role. The photography and interweaving of the characters is very beautiful to experience.

Steven Soderberg makes a testy little script about an ad man (Robert Downey, Jr) in therapy with a bizarre psychiatrist (Alan Arkin) exploring a recurring sensual dream. Shot is black and white the actors give it their all but the story is silly and becomes boring with all the distractions Soderberg works into the weak plot.

Antonioni attempts to breathe life into the old Italian movies of lover's spats and diversions and comes up with what feels like a script-less little mess of a movie bent solely on see-through blouses and nude cavorting on beaches.

As a triptych the film just doesn't become airborne, despite some very high powered, first rate directors. Much ado about very little. Grady Harp

I just watched the film today, and can't help thinking that Almodovar (who did the linking segments in between the films) would have formed a more perfect EROS trio with WKW and Antonioni.

Soderbergh's Equilibrium was the flimsiest and weakest short of the three for me, which was unfortunately compounded by the fact that it was wedged between WKW and Antonioni's contributions.

To follow right after the sumptuous, poetic beauty of Doyle's cinematography and WKW's direction only worked to emphasize the lack of richness in the visuals as well as characters of Equilibrium. It also drew unnecessary attention to the overtly "talky" film set mostly in the clinical settings of a shrink's office - in marked contrast to the intimacy of inner emotion and longing displayed in full abundance in The Hand. Ele Keats in the erotic "dream" sequence in Equilibrium failed to conjure up an authentic sense of eroticism and depth, unlike Gong Li's character Hua, and like the rest of film, seemed flat in comparison.

As for Antonioni, in what could very well be his last film, the sense of anticipation by the audience could have also created a lack of patience with the obviousness of Soderbergh's play between dream vs. reality, and also his mockery of psychologists/the psychoanalytic "talking cure" or therapy process.

Like many of his best, Antonioni's short is a deceptively 'simple' film that suggests something deeper: the understanding of love/eros from the perspective of free-spirited women. Like many of his films, the main protagonists are female. To better understand Antonioni's films, it would be useful to try to get into the woman's psyche. Antonioni once said that he concentrates on women in his films because "they are more instinctive, more sincere. They are a filter which allows us to see more clearly and to distinguish things." The Dangerous Thread of Things obviously continues and, in my view, succeeds in this tradition.

In the film, the first couple Cloe and Christopher shows how love can peter out when one ceases to be able to see the wood for the trees - the couple becomes too beset by petty things and the trappings of bourgeois life to appreciate greatness or grandeur in general: according to the synopsis on the film's website, "they barely notice the magnificent ruins and landscapes of Italy - let alone each other."

One senses Cloe's persistent attempts to reconnect with nature: she prefers wearing little to nothing; in the first scene, the camera lingers on her dressing to go out, the dead time of allowing us to see her awkwardness in her attempt. Her American husband, meanwhile, is impatiently waiting for her in his sports car. He snaps at her when she repeatedly expresses that what they had was now finished, and brushes it off simply as just a matter of her withholding from sex with him even as she tries to express how all that was close to her in Nature before now feels oppressive when he is around.

Christopher becomes attracted to the mystery girl who lives in a tower next door. Her freespirited cheerfulness reminds him perhaps of Cloe when they first met. He is attracted by the lack of imposed order ('chaos') within her house. She leads him up to the roof terrace - he is so affected by the magnificent view of the forest canopy that he is beyond words, momentarily forgetting even his lustful pursuit of the girl. They later make passionate love, making the most of the present without any burden or considerations about past or future. She tells him her name - Linda - he doesn't.

Christopher is now in Paris. On the phone, Cloe expresses her longing for him to return; her love is ever present; she only wishes he would change his "attitude." We don't know what she finds so problematic to constantly seek quarrel with him - but maybe his American or consumerist/materialistic values jar with her liberal European or naturist ideals constantly seeking the 'purity' of a primal closeness with nature.

The last scene of the two women taking turns doing a primal dance of unbridled joy on the beach, is rich with the symbolism of their becoming as one in spirit with nature and its rhythms. Their joyful (re)connection with nature and recognition of each other return us to that breathtakingly magical utopia at the canyon depicting two naked siren-like bathers singing in a waterfall.

In terms of image and theme, the film is reminiscent of Picasso's famous Les DeMoiselles d'Avignon. Both shock with an honest depiction of the conflict between the male (also representing modern civilisation and technological objectification) response to the perceived conjunction of threat and temptation posed by female sexuality, nature, love and eros.

To be fair, criticism of the seeming lack of stringency in the direction of the characters does to some extent hold water. There are multiple continuous shots of the couple, but these seldom convey the complexity of their relationship. Some of the shots could also conceivably have been better conceptualized and captured.

This lapse is probably attributable not only to Antonioni's advanced age and health problems, but also to less than ideal cinematography. In a recent Taiwanese TV interview, WKW commented that the reason for any director in his 90s and not in the best physical capacity to want to still make a film would be to satisfy a desire, a love - perhaps this is precisely the eros in the world of film-making that is ultimately portrayed by these directors in the eponymous production.

On the level of ambition and theme, however, Antonioni is still in his element. He did not set out to make just another softcore porn movie as most critics and viewers suggest, nor can it be said to be about nothing. "The Dangerous Thread of Things" is an accomplished film that will in time hopefully be seen for the real gem that it is.

And a very bad last 1/3 by Michelangelo Antonioni. I saw this movie last night at the Elgin Theatre at the Toronto International Film Festival and people walked out after seeing the Wong Kar Wai and Steven Soderbergh segments. I find it hard to rate this movie as a whole so I'll rate each segment of the movie separately. First, there was Wong Kar Wai's short film, titled "The Hand", starring Gong Li and Chang Chen. I thoroughly enjoyed this part of the movie, because to me, this definitely portrays what true love is about. It is a very sad story, told with great camera work and the colors were amazing, thanks to Christopher Doyle, the cinematographer. The lighting, soundtrack, and mood were also very enjoyable and complimented each other wonderfully. I rated this part of the movie a 9/10. Then came Soderbergh's short film "Equilibrium". This was more of a comedy, which was very much welcomed since the first part of the film was so sad. Again, the cinematography here was great too, although the story's plot wasn't as easy to follow as Wong's story. The symbolisms were a bit too much, in my personal opinion, but it was still a great short film. I gave this part a 7/10. Then came Antonioni's short movie, which I don't even remember the name of. The plot was almost nonexistent and to me, it was more of an excuse for porn than anything else. Like my friend said, it was as if Antonioni came to America and asked someone what their impression of foreign film was, and made it into this film. I particularly disliked the excessive amount of nudity in this segment of the film, since to me, it posed no greater meaning or purpose. The dialogue also had some of the cheesiest one liners I've seen since Van Helsing. I rated this part a 4/10. Overall, I'd say this movie was a 7/10 mainly because Wong Kar Wai and Steven Soderbergh pulled the average up.

For fans of Wong Kar-Wai, his segment "The Hands" is a must-see, as it ranks among his best, most fully-realized works. A truly stunning piece of work that not only summarizes everything great about his film-making, but which is also more focused and less indulgent than some of his more recent work. Unfortunately, the other two segments, from Steven Soderbergh and Michelangelo Antonioni respectively, don't fair nearly as well. Soderbergh's piece, titled "Equilibrium", is a tediously self-conscious exercise in cerebral cleverness, typical of his attempts at uncommercial "art" film-making (as opposed to his usual faceless Hollywood products). It is basically the cinematic equivalent of an obnoxious faux-intellectual laughing at his own "witty" joke. It only further proves what a truly cold, soulless filmmaker Soderbergh is that his segment of an anthology film supposedly based around the theme of sex is completely devoid of sensuality of any kind. Antonioni's closing segment (baring the appropriately pretentious title "The Dangerous Thread of Things") fairs slightly better, but not enough to prevent it from being a sad near self-parody from what was once one of cinema's leading lights. It is tempting to blame Antonioni's stroke (which rendered him wheelchair-bound and mute in 1985) for his piece's dirty old man sensibility (parts of it approach bad soft-core porn), but even that doesn't excuse the film's sheer almost laughable (if it weren't so tragic) pretentiousness. It could nearly pass as a parody of obtuse, incomprehensible European art films. That said, the film is still more than well worth watching for Wong Kar-Wai's film alone. Since it comes first in the chronology, you can easily watch it and then turn it off before the other two.

I saw this movie at the Toronto Film Festival, on the suggestion of friends who were very excited about Wong Kar Wai's short in particular. I had never seen anything by that director, but I was interested enough in the concept of the movie (three short films by three directors of different nationality) to go along.

The first short, Wong's 'The Hand', is excellent; it is touching and powerful. The acting is so good that the sub-titles are barely necessary; the emotion in their voices conveys meaning in itself. I enjoyed this enough to want to see more of the director's work.

The second is Steven Soderbergh's 'Equilibrium', and it's the sort of film that I sometimes think the West has forgotten how to make. It's a funny, fast-paced bit of banter between two excellent actors (Alan Arkin and Robert Downey Jr.), both of whose professional lives are thrown off balance by women. Also, despite its short running time,it manages to stick in a number of amusing plot twists.

Which brings us to the third short, Michaelangelo Antonini's 'The Dangerous Thread of Things'. As my friend put it: "Like so many directors, he got old and he got horny". This is a shocking combination of bad acting, pointless storytelling, and unnecessary nudity...and this is not just my opinion; by about halfway through, most of the audience was laughing with embarrassment and more than a few were leaving the theatre.

So, in conclusion, Eros is a film of contrasts: two excellent pieces of cinema and one piece of garbage. If you like the work of Wong or Soderbergh, I highly recommend this film. If you are an Antonini fan, stay away...it'll just upset you.

I rather enjoy watching short films. Like short stories, there's seldom room for more than one good idea, so that idea has to be done well--in the hands of a skilled director, this is an opportunity rather than a limitation. Eros is a collection of three such films, ostensibly sharing a similar theme.

Wong Kar Wai's "The Hand" is the first film, and is a premiere example of what a short film can achieve. A concise story about a tailor and a high class prostitute, "The Hand" distills the love/lust theme into a beautiful, intoxicating gem. It is by far the best film of the bunch, perhaps even one of the director's finest.

Steven Soderbergh's "Equilibrium" is the second film in the trio, and features a few shots of a naked woman and a long and unrelated dialog between Robert Downey Jr and Alan Arkin. As far as I can tell the film has vanishing little to do with love, lust, passion or sex--and not much else to say about anything. Soderbergh, who's often hit-or-miss, misses big time with this convoluted short.

Michelangelo Antonioni's "Dangerous thread" (or however it is properly translated) is quite different from the previous two films. It is certainly on message, featuring lots of full frontal nudity and some sex, but doesn't really have much of a story. It actually feels like it is much closer to succeeding than "Equilibrium", if only because it seems to fit comfortably within its time constraints, but the vacuous plot leaves you bored.

In the end Eros is a missed opportunity. After the first film you expect a beautiful tapestry of ideas and perspectives, but it never materializes. Nevertheless, the first film is well worth watching--easily justifying a rental or screening.

Hard as I tried not to believe all the comments in IMDb, I ended up agreeing with them. But as they say, "Two out of three ain't bad."

I agree with the comment that "The Hand" could be considered Wong Kai-wai's best. The length (or absence of which) of only 35 minutes works to his advantage, forcing him to focus on the story instead of taking the audience on a befuddled ride of the surreal. Aesthetic value in films does not come any better than what the trio of Wong, Chang Suk-ping and Christopher Doyle can offer. GONG Li is still the best - her charm and poise will take the current bunch of young actresses a long time to come close to, if ever at all. CHANG Chen demonstrated his versatility in portraying the introvert, timid and passionate tailor, polar opposite to the dashing young bandit leader the world first knew him by in Crouching Tiger.

"Equilibrium" lets us get a further peek at the lighter side of Soderbergh beyond the "Ocean's". The black-and-white filming is very appealing, particularly when I've recently been reminded of how good it can be when I watched The Manchurian Candidate (1962). "Equilibrium", which is less than half-an-hour long, can easily be a one-act play. The camera angles add to the fun, though. The most hilarious part, however, comes close to a mime that work just as well on stage as on screen. Both Robert Downing Jr. and Alan Arkin are fantastic.

"Il filo pericoloso delle cose" does not appear to have been made by the same Antonioni that made "Blow Up". I just love the assortment of enchanting scenery beautifully framed and shot, but then I could get them at tourist boards. The fact that these lovely National Geographic sketches are interspersed with what looks like soft porn does not exactly fill me with elation.

So that's the three segments. Erotic? I don't think so. In "The hand", the only erotic element is at the beginning and it only serves to underscore the more subtle and sublimated feelings that develop later. In "Equilibrium", the purportedly "erotic" dream is not really. And even if you replace it with a completely un-erotic dream, the segment will be just as funny. "Any dream will do" as they say in For "Il filo pericoloso delle cose", I find the Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat purportedly "erotic" elements rather hypnotising. Must be something wrong with me.

The problem with omnibus films, in which several directors contribute a segment to a common cause, is inevitably one outshines the others and you are forced to make a choice. Here are three of today's most prominent directors given thirty to forty minutes to expound on the linking themes of eroticism and desire. It is difficult to absorb the vision of one artist let alone three cinemasters, especially when two are not performing on all cylinders.

The project was initiated by Stephane Tchal Gadjieff, producer of Antonioni's last feature, "Beyond the Clouds." Partially paralyzed from a stroke, the legendary director was still eager to continue making films. Inspired by his devotion, Gadjieff devised a trilogy focusing on the subject of "eros." According to the press notes, "The concept was to have two major young directors, who have been on record to say that they have been influenced by his film-making, accompany him. Each would do a segment on the erotic subject of their choice...Also, we wanted Antonioni to tell us near the end of his life what 'eros' was to him." After considering numerous candidates, Antonioni settled on a pair of diverse talents. His admirers of choice were Wong Kar Wai, Hong Kong's master of mood and unrequited romance ("In the Mood for Love," "Days of Being Wild") and Indie-darling-turned Hollywood-heavyweight Steven Soderbergh ("King of the Hill," "Ocean's 12").

When assembling a trilogy film, rule of thumb generally centers the weaker of the three passages while saving the best for last. "Equilibrium" received proper placement. In terms of everything from concept to execution, Soderbergh's segment is far outclassed by his colleagues'. With a patient's back to him, how does a bored shrink pass the fifty minutes? The director took great delight in building a tale of eroticism around Alan Arkin and Robert Downey, Jr., but the yuk stops there. Arkin is very amusing as the scoptophiliac psychiatrist who sneaks peeps in-between Downey's catharses, but it's a one-joke concept that at 27 minutes goes on far too long. Animation guru Tex Avery's paranoid masterpiece "S-h-h-h-h!" made better use of similar material, plus adding a mood paranoia, at one-seventh the length.

Although built around him, for the sake of structure and pacing, the film should have opened with Anotonioni's segment. Co-scripted by lifelong collaborator Tonino Guerra ("L'Avventura," "Blowup"), "The Dangerous Thread of Things" has been described as a "mental adventure." Carlo di Carlo, curator of Italy's Antonioni museum, says, "Antonioni wonders: is a film born first in response to an intimate need of its author or are the images destined to have a value - ontologically - for what they are?" A brilliant notion (would one expect anything less of the director?), but given the allotted time, were it not for Mr. Carlo's guidance, I never would have been aware of this concept.

An American and his Italian wife are so bored with each other that they barely notice the beauty of Antonioni's surrounding landscapes. He doesn't seem to care that she strolls through town in see-through attire. A beautiful young girl enters the picture, the plot vanishes and we spend the rest of the time focusing on textures both man-made and of the flesh.

Wong Kar Wai's opening salvo is so powerful that it dwarfs everything that follows. Inspired by the SARS epidemic, the director fashioned his segment around "the act of 'touch.'" Once again Kar Wai's scorching, rain-soaked summers are painstakingly brought to life through cinematographer Christopher Doyle's unforgettable lensing. Chang Chen plays a nervous tailor's apprentice sent on his first solo fitting. Miss Hua (Gong Li) is a legendary concubine who strips the boy down, gives him hand release and instructs, "Remember this feeling and you'll make beautiful clothes." Years pass and even after countless fittings, the subject of their first encounter is never breached. The shame of listening to Miss Hua's sexual encounters each time he waits for their appointment only adds to his excitement. When sick and sponsor-less, she finally mentions the unmentionable, but her body is no good anymore. "All that's left is this pair of hands. You don't mind, do you?" When it comes to suppressing emotion and establishing mood through style, no one at work today can top Wong Kar Wai.Anyone who saw "In the Mood for Love" knows that these characters don't stand a chance at happiness, but plot is not the point. This is a film where style is not only subject, but substance as well. What he shows you is never as important as how he shows it. His approach is pure cinema, transcending and redeeming even the slightest of stories with the lens of his camera.

"The Hand" - ********* "Equilibrium" - ** "The Dangerous Thread of Things" - ******

I saw this film in Greece where the sequence is: Antonioni, Sodenberg, Kar Wai. The Antonioni film felt a bit indifferent but one has only to pay attention to some details to understand that this is a work of a genius like Antonioni who has great fun. Utopia, poetry, mythology and all that which eros is made of, parade here. Those who are disturbed by nudity should come to terms with their body. "Equilibrium" has some intelligent interplays between dream and reality and great acting. Sodenberg is trying to do a little too much with colour and the eros theme is a bit too subtle. Kar Wai has found a successful formula in creating tension, atmosphere, and passion in narrow, dark corridors and in the 50s time zone. This was the only film out of the tree that penetrates to the audience and has really something to say. The future belongs to the youngster.

Wong Kar Wai does a reprise of In the Mood for Love. A sadder, but wiser (and shorter) version. Rich sumptuous imagery.

Sonderburgh does a cute little comedic turn. Alan Arkin and Robert Downey have a surprising chemistry. At least someone will still make movies with Downey

Antonioni does a soft porn film. I think it was a great way to get handsome women to take off their clothes and sooth his old age. Naked on the beach playing in the waves. And even horses for the girls. For the men there is a really swell new Maseratti convertible with leather seats and side mirrors that swivel in for tight spots. Really - no fraud like an old fraud.

This collection of three short films by three "world class" directors is a mixed bunch. With two interesting footnotes to the careers of their directors, while the final one is simply put one of the worst films ever made and nail in the coffin of its director's career.

The first film is Wong Kar Wai's The Hand. Its about a women and her tailor over the course of several years. Its about smoldering desire and the meaning of love/lust, and what we do for the objects of said desire. Its a very good film, but not really up to Wai's best. It kept reminding me of In the Mood for Love.In some ways this maybe the best of the three, though I found I never really connected to it, even though I could relate to it. This is probably the only one that really belongs in a film called Eros.

Steven Soderbergh's Equilibrium follows. Its a humorous look at a man who's being haunted by a reoccurring dream. In desperation he goes to a shrink who helps him unlock the meaning of the dream. This is a pretty good sketch of a film that only falters at the conclusion. If you can forgive the poorly done ending you'll come out of it amused.

The third film is by Michelangelo Antonioni. To say that this film is a complete waste of film is an understatement. Its the story of a couple who are fighting. The man has an affair and then the women meet. Its horrible, its pointless. Its pretentious. I can't say enough bad about it. Its bad enough to force one to reconsider the over rated career of its director and to ask for his Oscar back. Its terrible but the only good thing about the movie is we get to see the two female stars sans clothes. This final piece is one of the worst films I've ever seen.

The last film aside, the real problem with this movie is that the three movies don't really fit together. The tone and style of the various parts don't blend together well enough to be one film. Unless you are going to stop between each film, the bleed over from each movie is going to effect the others. This isn't bad, its just not the best way to view the two good films of the set.

Ultimately I'd say if you're interested in any of the directors give it a shot, or more precisely the first two are worth renting or seeing on cable, while the final film should simply be burned. The films come off more as doodles than as fully fleshed out movies, but considering none is longer than 40 minutes thats okay. An interesting attempt.

There's is really no way to rate this film, since the quality of each piece is so diverse.

"The Hand" was marvelous, WKW decided to turn back towards the subdued after the cacophonous '2046', which is a great move. He has redeemed himself with this brilliant short, which masterfully flaunts his talents along with Christopher Doyles. It has all the elements of a WKW piece, and each step was perfection. The acting was also superb. I was surprised that Zhang Zheng was able to shine and barter next to Gong Li. I wasn't impressed by him in CTHD, but I am now. I saw Eros because of this segment, and I was far from disappointed. 10/10

Sodenberg's piece was witty and subtle. Again, solid acting. The script is very smart, and it certainly piques your curiosity for the movements off screen and creates an interesting sense of dualism. The ending shot was very interesting. 9/10

Antoninni's segment was as everyone else has mentioned already - Atrociously bad. Everything was discombobulated to the point where you simply give up midway and just laugh at the random imagery and nudity on screen. Random shots that seem to emphasize nothing, actions that have no purpose. I just had to laugh out loud in exasperation midway when the actress parading around in a see-through top rolled a wine glass on the floor. Nonsequiturs such as these fill the half hour short, where they are never revisited or referenced for the rest of the film. Although I was sufficiently confused, at the end I've become so indifferent and disinterested to even care to rethink the plot anymore.

Sadly to say, the dullest and meaningless movie I've ever seen! Especially the parts directed by Antonioni and Soderbergh. The one of Wong Kar Wai was at least watchable and had an actual story. There is no way I can explain how disappointed I was having lost almost 2 hrs my life to watch this. What were the creators thinking?! No story line, no meaning, nothing, simply nothing. OK, I could have expected it by Antionioni but I hoped that at least Soderbergh could have made something better. Obviously, the "art film" obsession has invaded Hollywood too. Or I must have misread something from between the lines. Even though I'm pretty convinced there wasn't even a sign of lines either...

One shudders at the disrespect shown here for the master of cinema Antonioni. Clearly one of the five or so greatest directors that has ever lived.

His segment is easily the most worthwhile of the three. Wong and Soderbergh provide bland mainstream narratives. Antonioni, whilst not on his 60s form, still sculpts with cinema like no- one else. The acting is stylised, disturbingly so, but not without intention. The composition is gorgeous. The meanings teasingly subtle. There is an indefinable wholesomeness, not a full meal perhaps, but a gorgeous miniature that satisfies the palette and leaves a lingering aftertaste. Yes, there is also some nudity - what are we, five year olds?

Michelangelo Antonioni creates a small masterwork. Steven Soderbergh and Wong Kar Wai, unfortunately, are not up to his standards. Still, one great work out of three efforts rewards the viewer The silence of Antonioni's work continues to echo the emptiness of our modern world. Behind the silence is that secret violence that shapes our lives. Soderbergh has declined a bit in his vision, but the old master retains lucidity and insight. The DVD is excellent. I recommend watching the Antonioni work first. Then put the DVD aside for a moment when you tire of commercial television and holiday parades and endless football scores. The non-Antonioni sections are worse than American football. Watching them will improve your appreciation of televised American football.

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.

After reading a few negative reviews, I recently watched "Eros" and was pleased with the whole film. The three stories are the views that Michelangelo Antonioni, Steven Soderbergh and Wong Kar-Wai have of eroticism, and in two of them the segments are what one would expect of their creators, confirming the auteurist film theory. Antonioni's "Il filo pericoloso delle cose" --inspired by texts from his book, "Quel bowling nel Tevere"-- is vintage Antonioni. Of the three filmmakers, he is the only one who choose a contemporary story, probably to prove (at least to himself) that after 40 years of making his tetralogy of alienation, men and women are still literally wandering and talking but not communicating, again women find solidarity among themselves, and technology is as usual an obtrusive part in the landscape of human relationships. The erotic element in this story is the rawest and most elemental of the three segments, triggered by a sex-hungry male who is depressing to his wife, and a toy to an occasional sexual partner; while the style is perhaps the purest, or at least the one told with the greatest economy of resources: few shots, sparse dialogue, natural sets, and a very simple storyline. In contrast, Soderbergh's "Equilibrium" has as many camera set-ups as possible, different levels of narration, alternate monochromatic and color sections, two stars, and an oblique-oniric-videoclipistic approach to eroticism, that mostly relies on Psychology 101 criteria, a strategy that, I guess, is intended to be funny. I did not find it very funny, although watching Alan Arkin made me smile, as he made me remember his maniac performances in "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming", "Catch-22" and "Last of the Red Hot Lovers". I wondered what the short was doing in this compilation film, but since that is how Soderbergh views eroticism, that I respect. The final section , Wong's "The Hand", based on the tale "The Twilight of the Bottom Dancer" (according to the director in an interview), illustrates the generalized (or maybe "cliched" would be a more appropriate adjective) notions of what the artistic approach to eroticism should be (for example, the tailor introducing his hand in a dress), but Wong and cinematographer Christopher Doyle are remarkable image-makers, and Gong Li and Chang Chen give very good performances, that I guess that for a modern moviegoer this must be the best segment. It is very good indeed, with soft transitions, measured rhythm, and good dramatic structure, covering a long lapse in a few minutes, but I see it as the fine conclusion of what Antonioni started and Soderbergh continued. A good film, perhaps better to be seen alone, with no interferences.

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.

3 shorts, 3 directors, 3 stories, 3 cultures, 3 streams of consciousness, 1 theme - love

I guess the story between Wong Kar Wai & Gong Li, although dark and sad, hits the bulls eye. It is about a tailor and a courtesan & the bond that develops between them. The setting, the photography and the mood gets to you and is engrossing.

Steven Soderberg's section has Downey, who features as an ad man and Alan Arkin who is his therapist. Downey is in therapy to explore his recurrent his recurrent sensual dream. Most part of this section is in B&W. Downey & Arkin do give their best but the story is not crisp and fails to make the connection.

Antonioni has recreated the love life filled with spats and distractions. This one has the most nudity that is on your face. This is the most messed up part. I wish there were more emphasis on the story too.

A lot could have been done here. after all Eros has 3 very good, capable directors at the helm. I was left wondering why they did not make the best of a lovely theme.

"Where is the thread now? Off again! The old trick! Only I discern the infinite passion, and the pain, of finite hearts that yearn." – Robert Browning

"There are no sexual relations." – Jacques Lacan

"Paint not the thing, but the effect it produces." - Mallarmé

"Eros" is comprised of three short films, one by director Wong Kar-Wai, one by director Steven Soderbergh and one by Michelangelo Antonioni. The topic of each film is "love", Wong's film a melodrama about a tailor's infatuation with a woman whose dresses he makes and Soderbergh's involving a zany discussion between an advertising executive and a psychotherapist. The meta-story here, though, is of Soderbergh and Wong's love for Antonioni, whom both cite as an influence and inspiration.

Unsurprisingly, Antonioni's contribution to "Eros", "The Dangerous Thread of Things", is the most interesting film of the bunch. Shunning the melodrama of Wong Kar-Wai and the nervous tics of Soderbergh, Antonioni instead adopts a more metaphysical tone. The result is a film which has a lingering, haunting sought of impact.

As with many of Antonioni's films, "The Dangerous Thread of Things" is less a love story than an "end of love" story. Our main characters, Christopher and Chloe, are ex lovers whose relationship is coming to an end. The film opens with Chris oblivious to Chloe's posed, naked body. They then spend their day bickering and reminiscing about better times, both simultaneously wishing to be free of the other and yearning for a time when things were right between them. Christopher's solution to their problems is to have immediate sex. "Sex is more than you think it is," Chloe sighs.

Midway in the film our couple spy several nymphs frolicking beneath a waterfall, and later see a beautiful woman riding on a horse. Chris pursues this woman, following her to a castle whose walls recall the rocky outcroppings amongst which the nymphs played. Chris enters this castle, stepping into cave-like shadows. There he finds the woman. Her name is Linda, Antonioni's representation of a kind of wild, chaotic, independent, but simultaneously idealised, femininity.

Cut to Linda masturbating, alone, on a bed. As she climaxes, Antonioni cuts to a shot in which his camera vacates a narrow tunnel to reveal Chris alone on a rooftop next to a metal rooster (literally a cock). The symbolism here is uncustomarily clunky for Antonioni. Moments later Linda and Chris do have sex, however its anticlimactic and the scene ends with Chris literally worshipping at her feet. He's forever entranced, but dares not to pull at her "dangerous threads". To pull, to investigate further, would be to unravel the whole image. Instead he leaves her there, alone in the castle, lost in his mind space.

The film ends with Chloe and Chris speaking on the phone. Time and space separate them, but they wish to reconcile. To fix their relationship. Chloe spies some wild horses in the distance and tells Chris that she needs to go retrieve them. Whilst in search of the untamed horses she finds Linda naked on a beach. In an instant, Chloe is also naked. Their shadows come together, though Chloe's shadow, scrawny and flawed, ultimately overshadows Linda's buxom silhouette. Speaking of this moment (30 years before filming it, in one of his notebooks), Antonioni says it is meant to suggest a confrontation between enemies, but also heartache and a friendship. Antonioni holds the image, forces his audience to think about what he's just revealed. Fade to black.

Antonioni directed "The Dangerous Thread of Things" when he was 92 years old, crippled, wheelchair bound and had lost the use of his eyes and voice. The director made two masterpieces in his later years, "Michelangelo Eye to Eye" and "Beyond The Clouds", two of his most powerful, formally beautiful films. Unfortunately "The Dangerous Thread of Things" does not reach these heights. Its sound dubbing is terrible, Antonioni's symbolism is clunky, his lighting plain and the film as a whole lacks the moody, dreamy polish of his best works. Notice these are all aesthetic problems, the flaws of a dying artist unable to muster the energy to command the camera and mould his cast. The actual content of the film haunts, and its the only film in "Eros" which actually sticks its claws into you. Even Antonioni's deathbed works posses an invisible power which few directors can replicate.

7.5/10 – This review has focused on Antonioni's instalment, but Wong Kar-Wai's short film is also quite good. Revolving around a tailor and the prostitute he is infatuated with, the film suggests that creativity, or specifically the drive for perfection (the sewing of perfect clothes), is driven by the compulsion to cancel desires or to attain the unattainable. Though doomed to failure, humanity forever strives for what is out of reach. Soderbergh's film is the lesser of the three, though fans of actor Robert Downey Junior may find it interesting.

Worth two viewings.