Monamour

I suppose I understand the young couple who apparently picked up DVD of this film because it was described as an 'erotic thriller'. Something lost in translation there , I think. And for those who take exception to the non PC and violent elements, I guess if this is your first Tinto Brass movie you could be forgiven for being taken aback that this is not all silky hand upon silky thigh to the drone of some appalling musak. But, come on everybody else, this is Mr Brass, this is Italian, so we get gutsy action, bottoms up, bottoms open and even bottoms on the toilet. True, we are given to understand that the leading lady is fantasizing/desiring all of this whereas it is of course, Mr Brass who is in charge of the fantasies portrayed, but then this is only a movie. Anna Jimskaia comes from Tashkent, Uzbekistan and has been a circus performer and gymnast, so no wonder she can bend that bottom high and so beautifully. Max Parodi is a little over the top as her failing husband but Riccardo Marino is suitably moody as her 'French' lover. This may be a bit vigorous for some, lifelike prosthetic penises make you wonder, why not the real thing but whilst perhaps not the ideal first date movie, I reckon you get what's on the can

This is not Tinto Erotic Genius, this is a fragmented re edition of his last movies from "Così fan tutte" to "Fallo!" What I have noticed watching this last movie of Tinto carrier is that there is a re edition of same sex scene and stories that this time where TOTALLY fragmented and non sense. If I think about it I just see this young Ukraine actress with her bouncing ass and boobs, and that's it.

What I have to say is that I do not agree with the decision to use a WAY BAD actor in the role of the lover, especially when before him Occhipinti did. Occhipinti performance in The Key and Così fan tutte were genius and well done. INSTEAD this time actors are so bad!!! the acting is horrible, light are horrible, screenplay is stupid and horrible, photography not at all like I remember it in the past Tinto Movies and I would say the only thing to save are the paintings. that's it.

I didn't like this movie at all and I'm sorry to Tinto to which I usually give a from 6 to 8 score. This time is 3/10. He had to finish his carrier with Fallo!, this is a useless and nonsense film which I think He has done just for movie or forced by someone else who wants to make movie on him and his name.

Hopefully Tinto won't dare to make another movie.

Delivering on the strengths of beloved director Tinto Brass in seemingly his final feature film of his career. After watching his prior 1992's film, both films are somewhat similar in styles, tones and overall erotica of explicitness. However that film's leading woman was a lot more likeable as opposed to the lead in this film "Monamour" who simply comes across as manipulating her ways throughout with teases of each men for her desire. As with his style, there are constant random close up shots to woman's bottoms and privates', and brief explicit scenes. The plot flows as an art house soft core with minimal dialogue.

Just as the British have a lock on double entendre dialogue and presenting really dirty sexual situations with a dollop of humour which makes the whole thing funny and not the least offensive, I found this film with its explicit sex (everything except penetration) a light-hearted, humorous and altogether engaging bedroom romp. Sure some of the shots are almost medical in their precision and you'd better like butt shots because they abound but the whole thing is so lightweight, so non-serious that it's almost an escapist film. Sexy as hell but not pornographic.

It is an erotic and sensuous play around a very sexual woman who doesn't get it enough from her husband. Don't expect any semblance of real lifeism, expression of feelings and so on. Its a Tinto movie! Well, it is actually more of Anna Jimskaia's flick than Tinto's. She is a feast to watch, especially when she appears sans clothes or is in revealing attire which she is a lot many times throughout the film. Some of the clothes she wears are so "Tinto"! It is a film, a B-movie to be specific (its not a porn film) with a story and a script.

But it feels like a remix of the director's older movies. It tries to play out suggestive sexuality but in a way, it stops short of it. The psychological surge of sensuality and kink that is a characteristic of Tinto is there but is not as strong in his other films like The Voyeur. That is why feels like there is nothing much in the way of the movie. The performances of the cast could have been stronger but it is the relative weakness of script has played its part in the not-that-strong characterization of the cast.

It a turn-you-on movie. Nothing much but I like it the way it is. Worth watching just for every scene of Anna Jimskaia and the camera that's on to her!