Good concept, poorly executed.

Expected more

Admirable film.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The title is a bit wrong. It should have simply been The Loss Of innocence, as there was not always something sexual involved.It was a strange movie - an art film with absolutely beautiful music and charming scenery - but, it would definitely not be for everybody.I am really not a fan of non-liner stories. This one showed the director (Julian Sands) as age 6, 16, and currently. It jumped back and forth and had some really strange camera work at certain points that was very distracting.There was a lot of symbolism to interpret. I am sure that not everyone could understand the loss of innocence as two twins (the gorgeous Saffron Burrows) gaze upon each other for the first time.In the middle of the three stories was an unrelated story of Adam and Eve (Hanne Klintoe fully naked in her only film appearance). Watching them romp through the Garden of Eden until they ate the forbidden fruit (at least it was figs instead of an apple) and discover sex was a welcome distraction. It was funny as they innocently explored each other's bodies.I tuned in to see Kelly Macdonald (Trainspotting). I was satisfied with that, but not with the movie overall.

A non-linear film scattered with segments of an interpretation of the "Adam and Eve" story from the Bible.The "Adam and Eve" portion of the film was pretty good (I would say better than most fairly straightforward takes on the story), however, I felt during the movie that the inclusion of the story was a little trite and irritating. There's even a moment when the Eve character looks directly at the camera (accusingly). I could have done without it, though I might have enjoyed it as a separate student film-type venture.The individual segments are very good.My overall feeling on the film is that it is often melodramatic and humorless, and left me with the impression that the director thinks very highly of himself. I would use many portions of the film as examples of exactly what NOT to do as a director.

Mike Figgis is a gifted director, but he is capable of the best and the worst, and no one can foresee how his next film will be like. From my point of view, his best feature up to day is "The Browning version". He has also made good films ("Stormy Monday", "Leaving Las Vegas") but sometimes he plummets into the hollow ("One night stand"), the commercial ("Mr. Jones") or watches himself for almost two hours ("The Loss of sexual innocence"). Maybe inspired by Kieslowsky, this film lacks the depth of the polish master, and is a boring collection of images supposed to be related with the awakening of the being, or the sexual self-consciousness, or whatever was roaming into the director's mind.

This movie tries WAY too hard to be artistic. the story is imbedded underneath so much confusion and symbology that its hard to tell what the director is trying to say.its as if the writers took 50 scenes and threw them into the air, and picked them up randomly, and that was the movie. the scenes look as if the editors didnt know how to cut a scene.nothing happens. dont waste your time. this is a 1/10 movie. the director is NOT an artist, but he definately wants to be one. he failed. he should not make any more movies. the end