Let's be realistic.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

I was simply astonished by this film. I almost think it should not be called a film, as it is so radically different from what we are accustomed to with feature films. This is not a piece of entertainment. Its a piece of incredible art. The book is difficult in itself, but so rewarding, and this film is no different. Its non narrative, and its not supposed to pretend to be like quotidian reality, but actually it feels MORE real than real life. The whole construction, the style of acting, the cinematography, set design and soundtrack are a complete departure from the usual fare. This is one of those films that can change how you look at film, if you are game for that. If not, leave it alone. Its not for everyone, but the best things never are.

As a long-time Ballard fan I was looking forward to seeing this on DVD release. The book is the densest but also most oblique setting out of his ideas. How could this be captured on film? The director tries too hard to remain faithful to the structure of the novel(strange that this should be a criticism but film is just so different - I was left wondering what a more straight-forward narrative would have brought, compare with 'The Unforgettable Lightness Of Being' which was a successful adaptation).What really damns the film though is the truly appalling acting throughout the film. Actors read lines that they obviously don't understand and make Ballard's intriguing prose seem quite trite. I recognise that Ballardian characters are often two dimensional - more cipher than flesh-and-blood people - but how did the actors manage to reduce the dimensions further?! The direction was generally dull and plodding, like something I would have seen at the ICA back in the 80s, ponderousness masquerading for insight.Back to the book ...........

I saw this way back at the 2000 Seattle Film Festival and memories of it have stuck with me since then. No idea if this film is available in any form today. Having struggled through but been intrigued by J. G. Ballard's book, this seems to be a fairly faithful reflection of what the book was all about, while being somewhat easier to digest {as if I can claim to have any idea what the book is all about!}. The merging of the themes of sex, celebrity, architecture, and modern consumer society somehow work on screen, even though it's a very confusing and narrative-free picture. There's no real way to make sense of what is happening scene by scene, but there are some fabulous location shots and effects. If you saw Crash then this is worth trying to see.

While definitely not for everyone, this movie effectively captures J.G. Ballard's difficult novel of the same name. More visual than literal, The Atrocity Exhibition forces the viewer to re-think the art of film and of story telling. It effectively communicates in a new language that caused some who saw it to declare that it 'changed their lives'. It changed mine as well, although I'm not exactly sure in what way. And while I can't say that I completely 'got ' the story, the story that I got was fascinating and one that I can't forget. I've since read the book and that certainly helped, but it wasn't necessary to enjoy the film. This film stands as one of my favorites alongside the best works of Kubrick, the Coen brothers and Hitchcock.