text: Unlike most reviewers here, I hated this movie, simply because the writer/director's bloated ego was in the way of an otherwise potentially interesting topic. Too many film fans equate 'EXTREME self-indulgence' to 'film GENIUS!', but I don't buy into that cult of personality. A film should be about its subject, not its director (unless it's a Woody Allen film, of course). *SPOILER* (which is just as well, save your time...) There is nothing brilliant about of showing you the foot-long porn-star's you-know-what in the last frame- that's actually called a tacky maneuver that SCREAMS film-school hackism. <br /><br />The poseur flick has achieved 'great film' status based on its indulgence and pandering to the audience  which, first and foremost, is the writer/director. But the rest of the audience should look down on the surly, brutal nature of the porn biz, too. The flick had an aloof angle to the porn industry, looking down on each and every player it could bash. No matter, just love your writer/director. Love those four-minute steadicam segments, which are supposed to show the energy of the moment, but somehow had all the verve of an off switch. Love the story- no matter how dull it is- about the gee-whiz rise and sordid fall of a porn star. But look down on it, too, of course. While the subject has the potential to be fascinating  innocence, money, degradation, beauty- your worshipful writer/director somehow managed to make it all look, again, DULL. Partly because of its run time. Here is something your auteur hero DIDN'T try: Giving the characters dimension. Or soul. Anything AT ALL to give a hoot about, aside from Genius That Paul Is, of course. But I'm not buying. I don't buy into indulgent hacks with astounding hype. <br /><br />Another overlong auteurist hack piece, with fifty times more hype than quality. I know some of you agree. The rest will see likely see this indulgent flick again. Not my problem.