Chris and I rented "Perfume" and "Eros" - the former of which was...interesting. In a really long and oft awkward way. I know I'm not in the slightest prudish (for reasons which don't need further explanation), but seeing sex acts on film just annoy me. They're never how the act usually is - I mean, sex can be love, but because love is involved doesn't omit the fact that you get pubes in your mouth and teeth, the sheets have a wet spot, and the air gets heavy with musk and spunk. I think scenes should just strive to capture this. I figure when you actually give a shit about someone, the wet spot ain't so bad.
"Eros" had two redeeming features in it. The first segment, directed and written by Wong Kar Wai had this desperate awkward (word of the day, it would seem) pathetic nature to it that I actually really liked. Chris was grossed out, but I'm like, good on you, Wong. Seriously. I hate trumped up sex scenes and let's face it, there are some people in the world who are sad and pathetic but it doesn't rule them out from having their own connections to humanity in their own way. The fact that he had the balls to show a very atypical relationship was awesome. Pathos is good, sometimes.
The second segment had Alan Arkin and Robert Downey Jr. in it. So enough said.
The third part was just awful. One of the actress' painfully fake tits held our attention more than the actual paper thin chain of events.
What just irked me about both movies is that "erotic" appears in both film descriptions (don't even get me started on the real fuckin' definition of "eros", for Christ's sake) and neither movie had any like...idea of what erotic was. It's like instead of showing some sort of actual interaction, it was just tits bonazna. *sigh*
And seriously, not even good tits.