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.

To make this movie's critic,composed by three shorts,I will make three critics about the three segments.The hand-Directed by Wong Kar Wai-Rating:9/10 I never was a Wong Kar Wai's fan.I think that Happy together is a bad pretentious movie.But his short on this movie,The hand,is simply great.The dialogs and the story are really well and it is the best short of the movie.The short does not focus in much sex scenes.There are only some.The short is more focused to dialogs,to characters and to the story.Equilibrium-Directed by Steven Soderbergh-Rating:6/10 Equilibrium is a fun,but mediocre short.Steven Soderbergh continues with his irregular career.Robert Downey Jr and Alan Arkin made very good performances.Equilibrium is for having a good time and nothing else.Il filo pericoloso delle cose-Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni-Rating:2/10 I always considered Michelangelo Antonioni as a master in movies.Well,I considered him a master until I saw his short in this movie Eros.I cannot believe that Antonioni was behind this short.It is almost all the time sex scenes without a sense.I think that Antonioni is very old for directing something.Antonioni's short was simply pathetic.

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

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?