Eros (2005) from Tuna

Eros (2004) is a trilogy of supposedly erotic shorts by three directors, Wong Car Wai, Stephan Soderberg and Michelangelo Antonioni.


The Hand (Wong Car Wai)

A young tailor, Chang Chen, is summoned to the apartments of a famous courtesan, Gong Li. She orders him to remove his pants, then fondles him, telling him that he will never forget her, and will make beautiful clothes for her. Her approach works, and he is devoted to her, making all of her gowns. When she begins to run out of looks, and therefore customers and money, he sticks with her, even to her sad descent into street prostitution.

There is no nudity at all, every scene is in near darkness, and I saw little of interest, erotic or not. It is an interesting take on unrequited love, but not one that I found at all entertaining. I would keep the fast forward handy for this segment.



Equilibrium (Stephan Soderbergh)

We see a woman (Ele Keats) taking a bath and putting on her make-up nude. We only see her breasts and her crotch. This turns out to be someone's dream. Switch to black and white. An ad executive is in a shrink's office, obsessing over his inability to come up with a sales campaign for alarm clocks, over a toupee a co-worker is wearing, and over his dream of the woman. The shrink convinces him to lie down on the couch and close his eyes, at which the shrink starts sailing paper airplanes out of the office window. Nonetheless, the shrink manages to help him. The surprise ending reveals the identity of the woman in the dream.

While Robert Downey Jr (as the patient) and Alan Arkin (as the shrink) gave good performances, I didn't see any point to it.

Again, this segment, for me, was a waste of time. I also failed to see the eroticism here.



The Dangerous Thread of Things (Michelangelo Antonioni)

As this film opens, Regina Nemni is lying topless in front of a villa. A man comes out to speak with her, and it becomes clear that this is the end of an affair. The two go for a walk and finally break up while standing on a pier. Cut to the same man outside a neighboring villa, and Luisa Ranieri inviting him in. She shows him the roof, and then goes back in, strips to her panties and masturbates. He then comes back inside and the two have sex. The man leaves for Paris. We see Luisa Ranieri, completely nude, dancing on the edge of the surf at length, then lying down on a blanket. Then we see Regina Nemni do exactly the same thing. As the film ends, Nemni finds Ranieri, and the two stare at each other.

The imagery is beautiful here, clearly showing a master's touch. I am sure those who are fond of finding the symbolism within art will find fertile ground here, with the two women being an alpha and an omega, the man connecting the two, and then the beginning and the end meeting. In fact, I should probably suggest this film to my old English teachers, as they thrive on the discovery of symbolism. I don't know from symbolism, but I do recognize eye candy, and this film makes the entire DVD worth the time just for the eye candy alone. I can't imagine a better visual treat than seeing a completely nude woman dancing along the surf line in broad daylight, and this film has two of them. Further, the visuals in the first half of the film are wonderful. In terms of plot and pace, this is not much better than the first two, but makes up for it in visual appeal.



  • No features except the original trailer
  • the transfer is anamorphically enhanced, and is not especially vivid



Ele Keats shows breasts and bush in the dream sequence.

Regina Nemni and Luisa Ranieri do extended full frontal and rear nudity in bright sunlight.

The Critics Vote ...

  • Roger Ebert scored the segments separately: The Hand 4/4, Equilibrium 3/4, The Dangerous Thread of Things 1/4

  • 51/100. In general, critics were embarrassed for Antonioni.

The People Vote ...

  • Box Office Mojo. It never appeared in more than 16 theaters and grossed less than $200,000.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, it's a C, a boring and arty film redeemed by beautiful photography in the Antonioni segment, much of it involving beautiful naked women. If you aren't interested in naked women, it's just a boring and pretentious film.

Return to the Movie House home page