The first film I have ever seen that is three different genre's of film in one. Three stories that only abstractly connect in theme are weaved together, one is mockumentary about a boy who shot his father and then flew out of the window, the other is a black and white Roger Cormanesque science fiction horror film about a mad scientist who distills the sex drive and becomes an infectious leperous monster, while the other is about an obsessive abusive sexual relationship between two prison inmantes. The latter plot almost got the film banned after the complaints of religious groups, because it shows an erect penis. If you likewise are afraid or made uncomfortable by explicit sexuality you will be ruffled by this. If not you may find this fascinating, challenging, and provacotive. A one of a kind film, about the awesome and divergent power of human sexuality.

I really thought this film was going to be a particularly memorable one. It seemed to have all the workings of a possibly memorable film for me: the director impressed me with My Own Private Idaho, the title is compelling, and the title together with it x rating (in retrospect, I wonder why this film is still rated x.....or why it was rated x even then) evoked in me an excitement at being challenged and confronted by a presentation of innovative ideas and taboo subjects and images. But the film doesn't reside prominently in my memory, except for a few images. Those images are unsettling and repulsive, for instance the scientist who ingested the essence of sexuality serum face appears to drip or melt in some scenes (this probably an analogy for AIDS), and the scene where a young man's mouth is used as a bullseye target for what seems to be a spitting contest.I don't know if director Todd Haynes was putting forth a concerted effort to make this a serious or important film or is rather just seemingly unspooling various thought threads of his views and that of society's on gayness at the time. The term "gay"(with is positive connotations in happiness and gladness) doesn't seem appropriate here, as homosexuality in the film coexists with often degraded and repugnant imagery, and is itself depicted often negatively. The film splits between three different yet still connected stories, as it moves back and forth between the three instead of presenting them in separate blocks. In so doing, the darker themes of imprisonment and confinement (the story set in prison) are juxtaposed with ideas of freedom, as when the strange (queer?) little boy ascends presumably into the heavens from the window sill (at first thought one assumes the boy jumping out the window is committing suicide). This gives the film an odd supernatural flavour and redeeming hopefulness, although upon further reflection the hope seems lost when considering that it has to be presented as supernatural (can unity and peace among and for gays only be expressed in this unrealistic way?) But on another level, the film may be an accurate reflection of the regressive attitudes and ambiguity towards homosexuality during the height of the epidemic of AIDS, so that the depictions aforementioned are expressing dark and angry emotions perhaps present in this particular gay film maker; maybe the thought that gays were sexually liberated at the beginning of the eighties but became stigmatized once again (due to a deadly disease, no less)was the cause for much frustration and anger among gay artists like Haynes. Perhaps it seemed for a while that salvation only lied in such a dreamlike solution.At any rate, the boy ascending out the window did give this movie an interesting, unexpected turn, and did mitigate some of the darkness that pervaded most of the film (this is represented visually as well, as the prison story cinematography appears colour desaturated and the diseased scientist one is black and white). But I found it sometimes too bleak....and way too slow. Perhaps this very slow (almost excruciatingly slow) pacing was deliberate for one reason or another on the director's part, but I almost had to shake my head from nodding out a bit to keep up my involvement in the film as an attentive viewer.An unusual story telling technique, some jarring and disturbing scenes, and just a general underlying weirdness are qualities I like, but the pacing is too slow and the message(s) seems too cynical and negative–at least for my own private subjective standards (which may or may not agree with you the reader). Then again, the film is called Poison, so that may be expected and required. I'll allot this seven stars because despite its flaws as I see them, it is nonetheless a work of film art--just not one particularly memorable for me.

Despite this film receiving a lot of negative feed back from a lot of its viewers, I think the film is a truly provocative experience. Granted this film is definitely not everyones cup of tea to say the least, but it operates beyond entertainment. It is not there to be liked or disliked, it is there to be analysed and that is where the enjoyment comes into play.The film is constructed of 3 stories; the homo, the horror and the hero. Spread out over three different time periods. If any one is thinking The Hours or 21grams think again, its not. This is a much slower paced film and for want of a better word, 'duller' than the two previously mentioned films.Upon first viewing of the film, it appears that the three characters share no apparent link. However, each story acts as a metaphor for a wider issue, which does connect them all. I wont say what it is, thats your job! Overall poison is a very clever work of art, which belongs to the sub genres of expose and art-house. So if you enjoy those types of films and are interested in queer cinema go watch it! Finally I think Todd Haynes is a genius, a true auteur.

Poison was a total snooze fest. I had trouble even keeping awake it was so dull. The director is so obviously trying to make an art film that it jumped over the line into pretentious boredom. Not just over the line, either, but miles over it, whole degrees of longitude over it, light-years over the line into the land of pretentious boredom.The three stories don't hang together in any way, and the frequent cutting back and forth between them wasn't made to be interesting or unusual - it was just cuts back and forth between scenes. The stories themselves may have been interesting in some other film, but here they are made incredibly dull. Inescapably dull. So dull that you begin to think of grocery shopping, trash hauling, ice melting, exciting stuff like that.The actors are excellent in their roles, it's only too bad that their roles were so shallow and pointless. The directing is at fault here, and not just a little. Nothing spells "I'm trying to make this an art film" like frequent black and white. You might as well have put it in the opening credits. The heavy use of shadow and dark rooms to obscure the camera view - didn't they teach that in Film Making 101? Yeah, it was the chapter called "how to make your movie pretentious beyond belief".In any case, you can like art-house films without having to watch puerile junk like this.