The film starts with a policewoman displaying all the objects that were at the sex party: from the wine glasses, CDs, to the sex toys. It was weird and long scene, but intriguing. Then we hear the conversation with Hans, one of the perpetrators, at whose house the orgies were hosted. He tells us the story of hw he met Peter online and how the duo used to host group sex parties with drug and bareback sex. He says what he did was not ok, but at the same time blaming the victims, because they should know what to expect at a sex party. And that blood exchange was, in a way, beautiful. Then we see an interview of Peter, who was the main guy behind all this and he shares his perspective saying it wasn't rape but consensual sex and what not. Then randomly we meet a botanist who tells us how virus can be transferred from one tulip to another. And then we see 3 cops interrogating a complainant. The film randomly ends as randomly it started.
I am not sure why this film was made if it wasn't; t even going to take a stand. It was snippets of multiple scenes joined together without giving meaning to it. Are you saying what the two guys did was ok? Because it was not. I understand them trying to justify because thats probably why they did it in the first place but as a film maker you should have an opinion, otherwise why are you making this film. The worse that botanist lady saying how infecting a disease can bring beautiful results on flowers, and depending on the perspective it can have beautiful results. And the idea of mixing blood could be romantic and beautiful. That was just jaw-dropping statement. The film is done in hybrid model mixing documentary, fiction and different perspectives of this creepy criminal case. This could have been interesting but this is an hardcore art house stuff, which despite its possibly interesting premise fails to invoke absolutely any emotions in the audience. (2/10)
Comments