The problem with many of the reviews for this film on this site is they aren't approaching the film at its level. This is a very important thing to do. You don't go into an action film with melodrama expectations, for instance.When you watch an experimental film, that was also presented as an art installation utilizing multiple screens (not all visible from one place) playing simultaneously with their sound audible everywhere, you don't go in expecting a traditional narrative with clear character psychology and an obvious point, like we are trained to read from traditional film. Likewise, we shouldn't be going in expecting it to be a direct adaptation of Bataille's novella. Again, an experimental adaptation is nothing like a traditional adaptation. This film adapts it in transgressive intent, some generalized thematic concerns, etc. etc.Also, this isn't porn. I know that may be hard for some people to understand, but it's best to really understand what porn is and what it does to understand this. Porno, functionally, reduces to a minimum anything that gets in the way of lust, of sexual passion, of sexual gratification, etc. etc. This film does not do this, it maximizes these obtrusive elements. A fifteenish minute scene of a woman walking up stairs, the Zapruder footage, the general method of transitions between sexual encounters, these aren't building up the sexual appetite but attempting to subvert them. There is too much in way of interruption and motif for this to be a 'pornographic film'.I would also suggest reading the novella before watching this film. And that doesn't mean skim through it, or pseudo read it, taking care to only grasp the narrative structure and do little to grasp his motifs, themes, concerns, and overarching thesis. Once you understand what the book was doing and saying, or at least have an idea of what you think the book was doing and saying, you may have a better time approaching this film.The most important thing to keep in mind - it's an experimental art film, you don't approach films like this the same way you would approach blockbusters.Lastly, would people please stop putting up scene breakdowns? Not only is it reductive to the overall action, but they are also always incorrect and missing parts.

What can I say?! An assault upon the senses, certainly and I feel I should have read the book first. Or maybe not. Artily shot and still erotic, although the continuous walking up the stairs in the deserted building, towards the end stretches one's endurance, as does the 15 minutes or so of static at the end. Thank goodness for fast forward on the remote. Still at least I was pressing forward and not stop. Before everything seems to slip into a nightmare scenario there are, for the record, a surprisingly erotic gay sex scene and a similarly effective lesbian one. The turn for heterosexuals comes in the deserted building and is a tawdry affair with coughing and pissing. Also the examination of what I assume to be caesarean scars remind one of the hard to watch forceps assisted birth at the start. The casual violence with a snip here and a wrench there perhaps foreshadowing what is to come. Narrative may be the scourge of the middle class but total lack of any certainly makes life a little difficult. Mind you being the son of a mad, blind and violent father I don't suppose life was a bowl of cherries for Mr Bataille.

Okay, the sex scenes (read: the entire film minus one boring staircase walking scene) were well done (by porn standards), "classy", "artsy", etcetera. Having not read the novel yet I was hoping that there would have simply been more to this film other than pornography. I knew that the novel was supposed to be very erotic and unapologetically so, but is that all there is to it? Does the novel simply narrate a bunch of screwing and blow jobs? Here's how simply this film can be broken down, scene-by-scene, without leaving anything out: --Stock footage of a woman giving birth while the narrator reads a brief biography about Georges Bataille.--Two guys have sex.--Two women have sex.--Girl stumbles up flight of stairs for like 15 minutes while other women scream from somewhere.--Girl pisses on the floor/stares out filthy window.--Two girls and some guy have sex.--10-15 minutes of black screen and electronic noise.--The End.Perhaps if there were at least some interesting narration from the novel during this stuff it would have had more of an impact as a piece of compelling art rather than a slightly artsy porn flick. I guess I just need to read the book.

many people would consider the writing of Georges Bataille pornographic. many people would consider the films of Richard Kern or even of Bertolucci to be pornographic. underground cinema always has pushed the envelope of our sensibilities and i think Story Of The Eye is no different. i think calling something porn has more to do with the way it is made than what exactly is being shown. pornography is cheaply produced for a buck. it is exploitative of its talent and its audience. this film is neither. the filmmaker is no hack, his imagery is subtle, symbolic, and often sublime. granted, subtlety is tossed out the window at times when penetration and bodily fluids take center stage, but those are jolts that intend to shock. i was shocked by this film, and i am so rarely shocked that it was actually refreshing. i've seen enough to not be shocked simply because the film is so explicit, but because it is so gorgeously photographed and interestingly designed AND so explicit. i highly recommend this for anyone interested in checking out a film that really goes there.