Well, I certainly wasn't, Fergoose.

I watched it for a second time about a week ago, after having first seen it about 10 years ago on DVD, I guess not long after its theatrical release (which I don't remember; I'm thinking this was released as an "arthouse" movie).

And it was the same train wreck on second viewing as I remember on first. I've given it a 4 out of 10 here on TMDB. Some movies are successfully clever, and some are, let's just say, falsely clever. This was definitely in the second category; it thought it was really smart, when it was, in the end, just eye-rollingly dumb.

I get what you're saying about the gratuitous female nudity; if I was being completely honest, I'd have to agree with you: in this particular movie, it was unnecessary, and part of me thinks that the director (Danny Boyle) executed this entire project just to get a stunner like Rosario Dawson to do a style of nudity that one only usually sees in a pornographic movie. Really surprised she agreed to it.

But, damn, was she gorgeous in this.

But you are right, Fergoose-- this movie was a clunker.

NeoLosman--

I would actually put the date more around 2017, when the Harvey Weinstein allegations first started coming to light. The resulting prudishness of the last six years (and I would say this even goes beyond the entertainment industry) is in large part due, in my opinion, to a massive overcorrection when it comes to the topic of sexuality in film. And I would say it's had a worldwide impact, beyond just the United States.

Speaking only of the U.S. scene, the first directors that start to again put out more adult-themed, R-rated content, will be called "edgy".

It is odd, but I've pointed out before, that in many other ways as modern society "progresses", paradoxically, art seems to be becoming more stifled (and not just on the sexuality front), regardless of whether the artist is on the "right" or the "left" of the political spectrum.