Fruits of Passion

I really like Kinski he is a great actor. I've seen this movie because I've heard that there are autobiographic aspects in this movie.

The film is full of symbols like a piano sinking in a river or strange shadow-pictures at the walls. Then the narrator always says abstract sentences like: "A kid sells fortune, but her box is empty now." This is really disturbing and wasn't really necessary, because everyone understands what this movie is all about. The movie shows how Kinski's character treated woman, and how he kept them under control. If there are really some aspects of Kinski's life in this story - then he really was an swine. So there is no need to watch this movie, unless if you want to see Kinski naked or if you like sick trash movies to laugh about.

This movie tries to be artistic but comes across as puerile as a film school student's first attempt. Next it tries to be erotic but comes across as clumsy as a virgin's first attempt. Lastly it tries to be cruel & gripping, but aside from Kinski's performance--which is powerful but conspicuously misplaced amidst the amateur melodrama--it's about as gripping as your hand around a wet noodle (which is an appropriate metaphor considering how un-erotic this film is). It features a blowjob scene which is even lamer than Chloë Sevigny's career-burying performance in The Brown Bunny. Run away now while you have the chance. Go find yourself a Victoria's Secret lingerie catalogue instead--it's more artistic AND more erotic than this tripe.

This film is sometimes called 'The Story of O-Pt.2',which tries to pass itself off as a sequel (of sorts)to the French erotic S&M thriller 'The Story Of O'. Although I've never seen the original version, I did, however get to see this sorry mixed bag of sexual & social politics. I guess the 'O' angle comes from the occasional S&M overtones (which were never as explicit (and unpleasant to watch) as the ones in 'Mistress'. Klaus Kinski is the only recognizable face in this French/Japanese production (but speaks his lines in English--at least in the version I saw). The unnecessary use of surrealism only manages to make this some what boring example in pseudo porn even more pretentious (what are they trying to prove with depicting a piano floating in water?). It's obvious that after the whole "porno chic" trend in cinema petered out (ouch-sorry,bad pun!)about 1975, producers had to scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to please the mavens of adult cinema,not to mention Foreign/Art Cinema,so film goers had to contend with dreck like 'The Last Woman',and others like it.

The movie maker wanted to make a kinki movie. Then he decided to make an artistic movie. He makes neither. The movie is suppose to take off where The story of O left. It never took off. Sir Stevens takes O to a Hong-Kong brothel so that she can prove her submission by whoring for him. She finds a love of her own. There is no erotism, there is no logic, there is no beauty. Be aware though, there are some very explicit sex scenes but still the movie remains very stale till the end. A disappointment.

I bought this film on DVD despite the "stale" review and that was idiotic... That review was completely accurate and I have never seen any worse "erotic" film in my long life! Even if it partly was lovely filmed and had interesting surroundings, plus a nice cover... But my own Extreme Erotica (c) films are over 100 times more erotic (just in the soft delicious aspect) with probably less than 100 times of this films budget! The story have no logical connection with the first film or the famous book... Or any new (exciting) element of slave training, except some very strange and sad developments... Then did the main male character - Klaus Kinski - not look a bit like the second Master of "O" he try to play... And not even lovely Arielle Dombasle, did look delicious in any scene!