jessbaxter-87899
This is one of my favourite films of all time! It may be because I first watched it with my best friend at 14years old and thought, at the time, it was outrageous! Very complex really, we would watch it over and over again and discuss it, deeply. Now it could be that it was this film that bonded me and my best friend (now of nearly 20 years!) but even if this is the case, I highly recommend this film as one to watch with someone who enjoys a deep and meaningful debate about almost all aspects of life and social and personal acceptance.The movie is nuts but addictive and 15 years later, no longer had vhs player, found it on dvd on eBay, ordered it, watched it and it took me back. It's waged a lot and not sure if the acting is at its best but still love it as a classic now!Must see to believe and watch again to discuss and then again to realise and then once more to get it and love it!!
clearblue-08224
I enjoyed this movie, but found it frustrating to watch because of its frequent lack of realism. The psychological themes in the movie were fascinating to see played out even though the script was apparently written in a somewhat ham-handed manner. I'm tempted to watch the movie a second time to pick up on what I may have missed in the first viewing.
gavin6942
A surgeon (Julian Sands) becomes obsessed with the seductive woman (Sherilyn Fenn) he once was in an affair with. Refusing to accept that she has moved on, he amputates her limbs and holds her captive in his mansion.After receiving an NC-17 rating by the MPAA, the film was given an R-rating on appeal and released in the United States in September 1993, but received critical backlash and was a financial failure. Gene Siskel was one of the film's few defenders, writing, "I went to the theater to see it expecting the worst," and he called it, "a brave little movie that explored the provocative issue of how some frustrated men channel their inability to love a woman into cruelty." Genre fans might like it, because of the familiar faces -- Sands, Fenn and Bill Paxton. It does suffer from having no one really likable in the plot, and a few twists that may not sit well with some people.
Martin Onassis
When I saw Boxing Helena, I was young but pretty jaded to motion pictures. I was in a for the shock and ride of my life. Now that I read it was directed by David Lynch's daughter, it doesn't surprise me. I wont belabor the plot or details of the movie, but I will say that as a young man who was pursuing and dating lots of women, this movie really made me think about the vulnerability of even super attractive women, and about what happens when men put no constraints on their desire to chase or own a woman. The fact that it delivered that message in a totally original and effective fashion makes it a top-shelf film in my mind.I will say that I told a few women I thought it was a great film and they were disgusted by it. Too many people took this film far too literally, even though it wasn't literal even within the plot. I actually think it assaults our construction of goddesses in the media at such a root foundation that it's actually a very insurgent, anti-establishment film. It really attacks a materialism associated with the pursuit and existence of beautiful people.It's definitely a thinker's picture. It's a perfect use of film, portraying something you don't want to see in real life to illustrate a point. It's also brilliantly shot and acted. Make up you own mind. There's no other film like it.
AD
