Reviews

As a librarian, I abhorred/adored most the initial sequence of this funny movie: books changing their places, a catalogue with it's cards flying around. Great! The rest of the film can be looked at, can be enjoyed, and can be forgotten.

I went to see this film being rather sceptical, but left the cinema rather enchanted. That is due not so much to the script or to the actors (indeed, I found Matt Damon not to be the best choice to play the Ripley character) but to the wealth of ideas to be found in the movie. Just two examples: Ripley, after "becoming" Dickie, places an antique bust of Roman Emperor Hadrian in his apartment, thus indicating the stage of coming out he has reached so far. To film on location in Venice I imagined to be impossible nowadays. But the movie proves otherwise just by using some very smart tricks, which I enjoyed seeing very much. Because of these détails, I didn't find the movie too long, but liked the 136 or so min. the German copy lasts.

I believed "Trick" to be something like a screwball comedy, but the movie just hasn't enough drive to be one. Nice acting, though, but also boring music and far too many lengths. And sore with that American kind of morality which disgusts Europeans ever since the public response to Clinton's affairs.

Opposite to the more recent films of La Bruce, this one is simply boring. Most moves can be anticipated, acting is far too "professional", the story is nonsense, even if I will admit, that it may suggest that sex has to do with violence. But that is knowledge from the last century or even older. So what? I strongly recommend not to view "Skin Flick", especially if someone is usually a fan of Bruce La Bruce.

After seeing most of Pasolini's films, and liking or even admiring nearly every one, I still don't understand why he had to make this horrible and disgusting movie.

Even if "Ben Hur" of 1959 isn't a bad movie, it's an unnecessary one. In my opinion, the first "Ben Hur" with Novarro is far better than this remake, which shares the fate of many remakes: you go and see it, perhaps you like it, but at the same time you are tempted to frown and ask: so what? It was all done already!

One of thos movies (like "Pulp Fiction") where the audience is expected to laugh about scenes of most cruel violence. That's disgusting and even dangerous, because this plays down violence. "It's only a movie, you know?" But we all know how influential movies can be, don't we?

This is one of those movies (like "Fargo") which expects the audience to laugh about the most cruel scenes of violence. That's not only disgusting but even dangerous, because in spite of "It's only a movie, you know" we all should know how influential screen behaviour might be, don't we?

No story, no play-acting, no conservation, only action: inside its genre a great film. It just meets its goals. Who wants more?

When reading Genet, the thought that his books are no good for screen adaptation will frequently occur. Fassbinder's "Querelle" might be able to prove otherwise. Still, the movie seems more like a dream to me, like passing images illustrating a story rather than telling it. Great cast!

That's that typical sort of movie "We-forever-doing-the right-thing-Americans-come-and-rescue-the-poor-natives-from- their-bad-bad-oppressors-and-they-lived-happily-ever-after". It's a pity, so many good scenes and sights wasted on a brainless story.

This movie might be a bit out-dated now, but it's still nice to see. Many little scenes to enjoy (e.g. the two main characters bringing a carpet to an occupied house; a resolute woman hitting a man who has molested her with her high-heeled shoe; a ride on bike through the park, and music from Frederic the Great), what I enjoyed most was the recipe for mousse-au-chocolat, and that's timeless!

I liked that movie, if "like" is the right word for it. I would have liked it even better, if the music hadn't got on my nerves in quite an unspeakable way.

Funny movie, really, but not really gay. And not the kind of movie you would await from John Waters, so a bit disappointing also.

Read the book, forget the movie!

The movie has its values in itself, but after Germany's reunification, it also has become a kind of historical value. It can tell us never to allow again walls to be built between us!

Such a film would be possible only in Italy. Every German attempt to make a similar movie would be extremely painful, every Hollywood attempt would be "Schindler's list the second" without the positive sides of Spielberg's movie, every French attempt would be "Resistance" - you can go on in that way. But the Italians, with their Fascist past along with their comparative innocence in relation to anti-semitism, are the perfect people to make such an unbelievable, moving film.

The Hamam becomes a pleasure for Francesco, but also a measure for his life and, in the least, his very existence. Very daring. Really good cast. The only thing is, I can't stand that music!

The film isn't so bad, but in my eyes (which have seen very costly costumes, locations, stars) the expenditure should have brought forward a much more interesting result, more historical accuracy and - most of all: better music!

Not so much Francis Bacon, but his lover should be seen as the focus of this film. He's the one who offers his life, his existence to the artist, and the artist takes it. The artist does this with the best of reasons: his art. But that's not the thing to learn for the audience. The thing to see - at least in my opinion - is the lover's ability to be of use and to be thrown away when used. That may be a really bitter fate, but it is a fate!