Doctor Whom
There is a missing piece of continuity, which the director's commentary ignores by claiming that the last third of the film is fantasy. It would be a spoiler to say what it is, but I found the transition dishonest. Worse, one learns from the commentary that every young male auditioning for the lead part had to do the solo masturbatory shower scene; hundreds did so until finding Ricardo, who was perfect. I am sure there was much enjoyment for the director to watch the auditions, but the horror comes at the sexual exploitation of Ricardo, made clear in the commentary. The director declined to use the actor again, because his body was "used up", leaving Ricardo to move back to live and farm with his mother.
The director treats Ricardo as his character Sergio treats his sexual objects, controlling, and then abandoning them. I grieve for Ricardo.
WlfrmG
The film follows the nocturnal adventures of handsome Sérgio. He works as a rubbish collector and many of his adventures are sexual encounters with other men. This is a film by a gay director for a gay audience. The film does not apologize to a main stream audience about sexual behaviors. They are just shown, and quite explicit. They just happen and most often in a somehow innocent way. The border between sexual fantasies and reality are not always clear, and I had to watch the film a second time for understanding many details, such as the opening scene that would go in a conventional film at the end. Too many gay characters in films of the recent years are well off middle class men, so it is nice to see here a normal working class guy.
biflexx
This is a somewhat interesting idea - if it really went anywhere. I enjoyed the first act as the young man becomes obsessed and I hoped the film would go further and to more mature places. The film just feels like a very long excuse to watch the gorgeous young man who plays the lead with no clothes on - and he's nude constantly for those who are interested in that.There's nothing wrong with making a hot film but honestly, this goes nowhere and manages only to raise a few interesting questions and then do zero with them.I can't help but feel it's a protracted excuse to see this 18 year old beauty in his all his narcissistic glory. The filmmakers seem confused in their own descriptions of the action on the commentary track and seem to think that "Shocking Images" equals a strong film. Nah, not by a long shot. It's hardly the hard-hitting exploration of intense obsession it tries to be and succeeds only in being a pictorial of a this guy.One need only to see the "special features menu" where it lists "eye candy" and each scene of the young man in his glory is featured for added pleasure. Come on now gentlemen... who are the filmmakers and anyone who seriously watched this film kidding? I'm all for a serious, dark explorations of taboo but this is not it.
cbrazvan
I have walked into this movie thinking that I may get some insight into a world I am not too keen to be a part of. Curiosity killed the cat.For one and a half painful hour, I have watched a pornographic movie about somebody's dark obsessions with men and domination. No comments, no hints whatsoever on the life of the character, no hints on his motivation of doing things he's doing. Confusion reins supreme in this all-along barked movie, in which dog barks transcripts: "woof!woof!" summed together would clearly overpass the number words used to script the dialogs along the 90 minutes of dreadful scenes.For a movie that is a snapshot of the life of a sex maniac and which offers zero guidance to the baffled viewer, 1 is a generous vote.
AD
