grantball66 A truly interesting movie, albeit very much low budget. It is an art piece to be sure - more about ideas than story. Especially ideas about shame and intimacy. Some of the supporting women are superb and I wish the director would have focused a little more on their development as characters. The score is also very good (thanks in part to Peter Stormare of FARGO fame - who has a terrific cameo). His character could have also used another scene or two. The animation - for the most part - is quite good, and adds another layer of parallel to the main character's struggle. Although the movie is riddled with flaws, I liked it. And I would compare it to a walk through a gallery. Some very interesting pieces, others not so much. 7 out of 10.

edchin2006 The fact that there are more comments than votes should tell you something about the film.No, this is not the worst film I've ever seen. Then again it is far from being mediocre - on the wrong side of mediocre. Better ways of wasting your time might be to see Eraserhead or Pink Flamingos. (These two are actually worse but have the benefit of cult status.) You gotta think that there's gotta be a reason why the IMDb plot summary is signed Anonymous. They let anyone write comments! If the people associated with the film aren't ashamed to have their names listed in the credits, why would a commenter hide behind Anonymous?

Marcus Carnegie A offbeat, bizarre film themed with dark humor and sex which concerns a young man trying to sell his book of stick figure drawings. Enter his obsessions with finding a great 'sex'? partner through a bunch of real and perhaps "not real" sex romps. Since the title suggests a sexy or erotic film with lots of T & A and no doubt that is what these filmmakers actually tried to make.. it isn't. Many "clothed" sex scenes, no real flesh on display and typical, repetitive blanket covered eroticism. Very reserved American style here folks. There are many supposed erotic scenes but it's as if they were all filmed for a PG-13 audience.Typical of the American filmmaker who tries as he may to make a sexy movie but just kinda, can't. They are often just a tad afraid to show what they really want to and that really comes off in this film quite strongly. As one reviewer points out, it's one film trying to be another. tisk- tisk. I've always thought that American filmmakers who wish to make a sexy film should first consult some European, Japanese or Latin cinema first. At least they can get it done.

groggo This was a pretty flimsy film that tried for artsy and ended up as an excursion in confusion. It tries to be 'profound' and 'existential,' yet it is never for a moment convincing.If you read the IMDb summary for this film, you'd think you were in for something really special, a once-in-a-lifetime examination of a young man's travail. The problem is, the gushing summary was submitted, word-for-word, through the film's website.IMDb has to clean up its act. This flagrant 'puff-piece' by the film's principals and promoters should never have appeared on IMDb as an 'objective' summary of the film itself.Basically, the story concerns a young man's desire to have his book published. It's a book about stick figures trying to find meaning that transcends orgies with real and imaginary women. The young man searches for 'The One,' which is shorthand for what mere mortals used to call 'a true love'. In this film, 'The One,' a hackneyed term at the best of times, becomes an over-inflated motif for bargain-basement philosophy. The film is little more than an examination of a man's angst in trying to find himself. Despite IMDb's unctuous, self-serving summary, there's nothing new here at all. This is not an existential film. It's just another 'coming of age' flick that haughtily pretends it's something else. I've said it before: IMDb very often cannot be trusted as a reliable source for film summaries and even criticism. Many of the people who give outrageously high ratings on the IMDb board are those who made the film and their myriad friends. At best, it's spectacularly misleading.