Sleeping Beauty

Poor university student Lucy (Emily Browning) responds to a mysterious ad and falls into an erotic creepy job.

The pacing for this is way too slow. I'm willing to let the creepy story seep in, but I can't let the creeping pace go. There are too many nothing scenes. Julia Leigh is the writer/director of his artsy film with pretensions of greatness. As for the nudity, there is no sexiness or beauty. It's not gritty. It's not powerful. If we need anything, we need really tough acting from Emily Browning. She needs to show a range of emotions that she doesn't seem to possess. For most of this movie, she gives us her blank face. I must admit that there is something unique here. It's probably worked out exactly as Julia Leigh had wanted. But I just don't find it compelling.

I like my movies odd, and I like my movies sexy. In general, when I review an odd, sexy movie, I want to be kind because I don't want filmmakers to stop making them. But there is a limit – and freshman director Julia Leigh's "Sleeping Beauty" is long on odd and short on sexy.

"Sleeping Beauty" is about a young woman named Lucy (Emily Browning) who is psychologically damaged. In fact, everyone Lucy encounters – an old boyfriend, co-workers at a temp job, the landlords with whom she lives – is damaged in one way or another: hostile, bitter, emotionally impenetrable. So Lucy, who is nothing if not experimental, takes a new job as a living blow-up doll for rich old men to play with (but never to "penetrate," as we are constantly reminded by the madam of the high-end brothel for which Lucy works).

Leigh's movie is basically a 100-minute peep show in which we observe Lucy and her peculiar acquaintances. It's an Australian production with French art-film pretensions; when someone pours a glass of tea or wipes down a tabletop, Leigh's camera lingers portentously. There is much unspoken angst in the film – but not to worry, because all of this somber silence will soon be broken by some kinky sex.

If I didn't know better (actually, I guess I don't), I'd wager that "Sleeping Beauty" was produced by a committee of dirty old men, several of whom get to appear in scenes with the fetching, young Browning. How else to explain numerous scenes in which these geezers, their twigs-and-berries on full display, spoon with the naked and unconscious girl, or mount her sleeping (drugged) body, or toss her recklessly onto the floor?

"Sleeping Beauty" is promoted as an "erotic drama," but while watching it I found myself empathizing with one of Lucy's customers, who complains: "The only way I can get a hard-on these days is if I swallow a truckload of Viagra."

This movie's trailer got people talking because of its very Kubrick vibe. And, in fact, the movie explores territory very similar to 'Eyes Wide Shut'. How sex has become more liberal and extreme, yet also sterile and disconnected.

The lead character, Lucy, (Emily Browning - a long way from Lemony Snicket) exhibits this. She'll sleep with people at the drop of a hat, yet with little evidence of desire. In fact, there's hardly any evidence that she processes strong emotions at all. She just goes about her business. Things happen to her, and she's too reticent to shrug them off.

To solve financial worries, Lucy gets a job at a posh, exclusive establishment where she is willingly placed naked and unconscious in a bedroom for a client, to do with her as he wishes (except penetration).

Through Lucy and the various clients, we see how we need vulnerability in others to relax the masks that we wear. Otherwise, we are so preoccupied with maintaining an image that we don't even try and connect with others. Emily Browning does well at rounding out the expressionless Lucy, and the voyeuristic nature of the material makes the movie entertaining. Unfortunately, the ending, though a pretty logical conclusion, also feel anti-climatic, a tad obvious and leaves us feeling short-changed.

The film is an interesting, respectful, non-gratuitous effort, yet many will ultimately find it like the leading lady - pretty impenetrable.

An interesting choice. Prostitution amidst university students. Rich old men who spend their money on flesh. Modern 'dettachment'... separating the body from the heart, the soul, the mind. Most of the critics of this film seem to dwell on complaining that "our world is not like that! All the people here are horrible...!!!" Of course they are missing the point. We are watching crude realities, but also dreams, symbols, Freudian/Jungian fetishes... A woman is directing. Jane Campion is producing. This is also a 'clue' that MAYBE there is more to this film than meets the eye... Behind the veneer are MANY hidden truths.( Behind the Twin Towers, behind the choice of a black president after a guy like Bush jr.) Separation from the truth. We are all 'anaesthetised'... so Lisa is NOT so strange, after all. Money rules. Maybe we are victims of our society, of our times. We are 'dead', as T.S. Eliot wrote some years ago. Of course the world is full of wonderful, hearty, passionate and generous people. But this film aims elsewhere, and I myself feel grateful to its director, scriptwriter (and , why not, actress) for taking the plunge, and re-floating Pasolini's 'Salò' in a more digestible (maybe more intelligent?) guise. Kubrick? His last movie may still reveal something in the future (ALL his films age very well), but he was an elderly man, and this young director seems to have the upper-hand in as much as hitting the nail on the head with the 'ésprit-du-temps', the 'Zeitgeist' or, more plainly,(and painfully), the new age our youth are forced to grow up in. Somewhat puzzled at first, I gave this film a chance...let it 'breathe', in my conscience and intellect. I'm glad I did. It contains more than one morsel of food for thought.

Sleeping Beauty is a fanciful 'indie' movie about a girl, Sara, who has numerous mundane jobs as she attends an Australian university, but decides to take on some *ahem* nightwork as an inanimate object who sleeps alongside paying customers.

It's one of those films that leaves me wishing that I was smarter. I figure that way I'd like movies like this more.

Let's face it - it's different. It's different in the way it's shot, the way it tells it's story, the way the actors speak and are asked to perform and it's definitely not your average Hollywood output. It's an independent film which, if it's lucky, will achieve a cult following.

The dialogue is slow (if there is any at all), there is even less background music, it is filmed largely with one static camera shot per scene (scenes which tend to go on for longer than you might expect) and the actors all behave very aloof.

I have nothing against films that go against the 'classic Hollywood narrative.' The film industry needs them. And I'm no prude when it comes to tackling sensitive adult issues on film. However, sadly, I have to come down on the side of those who thought this film was just simply boring. I know it tries to be shocking and different. I just thought it was dull.

It's basically one of those love/hate films. I've read plenty of other reviews on it and about half side with me, while the others praise its artistic merits and depth of film-making. That's fine. Just expect to either turn it off after twenty minutes or sit riveted to the end in admiration.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm now off to watch Bruce Willis slapping bad guys and giant monsters trashing New York.