Avis des utilisateurs

I just saw this film last night and was really amazed by it. Unlike the Verhoeven films that most American audiences are familiar with (Robocop, Total Recall etc) it was a compelling coming of age piece set in Holland. Like most of his early Dutch films, you can feel many of the hallmarks of his style coming together and it's a testament to his skill as a director that he can make a small character-driven film about ordinary people like SPETTERS every bit as compelling as a gigantic special effects driven spectacle like ROBOCOP.

This is an 80's disco motocross movie that has very little disco and very little motocross. What it has are many strong characters, all of them navigating life transitions and trying to figure out their place in the world.

As for the "shocking" scenes that a lot of people are referring to in the posts, there is a fair amount of sex and nudity (male especially) in this film but to call it "shocking" is misleading. The reason the film's frank treatment of sexuality is so eye opening is the way Verhoeven handles it as no big deal. Two men sneak into a subway for a tryst, and you actually see one of the guys go down on the other guy. Two pairs of teenagers sneak into an abandoned building to have sex and you see it. Or when a man and a woman lay in bed talking after having sex, you see the guy totally naked as well as the girl. What happens happens and it's presented as is.

Verhoeven doesn't cut away from nudity, but at the same time doesn't artificially sexualize it by zooming in it, laying in sexy background music etc etc. Like the co-ed shower scene in STARSHIP TROOPERS, it's presented in a completely matter of fact way. Verhoeven doesn't allude to anything in these scenes, and it gives the film a power and honesty and that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Overall I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND this movie to anyone.

Bart Blackstone * Film Club Hollywood, CA

Watching Spetters I felt like going full speed in a roller coaster. But not like in action films where the action often starts to feel monotonous. No, this roller coaster is full of life, emotions, all kind of things. The pacing is somehow well done, so that there are a lot of scenes with a lot of going on all the time, but also slower moments to even it out. The drama is very good, there is a lot of comedy, and what makes this a Verhoeven movie, there's a lot of nudity. I've never seen as many male private parts in an actual movie than here. But somehow I was more at home in this movie than in Verhoeven's "Turkish Delight" which I wached a while ago. I found that one somehow more difficult to stand, but this one was all-around an enjoyable ride.

Oh, and great, great music. Being a huge music fan I always get more kicks out of a movie if the music fits the movie.

Rough, passionate, uncomproised film-making. I might have to raise my rating later on because I felt like stumbling upon something unique, the kind of movie that makes an impression and you have to come back to it eventually.

While I wouldn't call this film anything great, it did manage to consistently keep me entertained and interested, and that usually isn't an easy task. The music stood out as a particularly effective part of the movie, as I often found it to be chilling. There were also a number of fascinating scenes in this movie, many of which would probably not be for all tastes. In fact, much like most Verhoeven films, this movie probably isn't for everybody, since it does get somewhat graphic at times. However, if you are a person who can handle the occasional disturbing image, then I would say that you should give this film a look.

Yesterday I saw Spetters again after a long long time, and it still does it for me. It's even become a trip down memory-land back to the good old eighties when I was a teenager myself.

It's a story that could have happened in real life. It shows the conservativeness of the heavily reformed Christians in the Netherlands in an excellent way and it still goes like that nowadays. The Netherlands are well known for it's liberality, but be aware, there is a other side to the Netherlands to that isn't liberal at all and it's shows in this movie. The way Eef's father is raising him and the way Eef is resisting his father is something i've seen a lot in real life.

One slight downfall from the movie is the way Eef found out he was gay. As he didn't actually seem to have any problems with the ladies, it's hard to buy that he suddenly became gay after he was raped. There were not any signals before. As for the homophobic humor, well, we all like to think we have the biggest one and the way it was handled is typical dutch. We are liberal about sex and like to joke about it. You feel for the characters and it's got heart. And that's always a hell of a achievement.

Furthermore i was surprised to see so many high raids by people outside the Netherlands. It's a typical liberal dutch story, so i'm surprised to see that people outside the Netherlands seem to understand the movie better then the people that commented the movie from the Netherlands.

This is a real raw no nonsense 1970's Dutch film style movie. Lots of unsencored pictures with nudity and lot's of cursing. Typical for Dutch movies in this era. Paul Verhoeven really pushed the boudries with his films though.

This film is really great. It's about three young, cocky Dutch guys whose lives revolve around Motorcross racing and their encounters with a cute, ambitious, smart working-class girl who lives in a trailer and is a short order cook around the Motorcross site.

It is ultra-realistic and true to life and at the same time over-the-top and absurd to satirize the equally ridiculous but more fleeting absurdities of everyday life; in fact, 'real life' is much more absurd than anything that happens in this movie, but 'toned down,' and harder to notice, except upon reflection. With 'over the top' movies like "Spetters" the absurdities we all notice are turned 'way up high' for instant and easier identification and reflection. Other great movies of this type I've seen are Verhoeven's American version of "Spetters," "Showgirls," Sam Fuller's "Shock Corridor," Ken Russell's fantastic uncut version of "Crimes of Passion," and Mathew Bright's first "Freeway," but "Spetters" tops them all. It is the ultimate masterpiece of 'over-the-top' satire.

Try to find a well-stocked video store that carries the uncensored, subtitled Director's cut for rent (it's got some very graphic sex scenes in it with full fronal nudity, and a homosexual gang rape that makes anything in "American Me" look tame); it's a well transferred version which came out on HBO video a few years ago, and is now unavailable for sale for some reason; I'd buy it in a second if it was available.

Verhoeven's fifth feature-length film was attacked by critics, financiers, and much of the Dutch people alike for being "decadent", or "perverted" when originally released in 1980. Twenty-four years later, and unlike what has happened with Showgirls, Paul is having the last laugh. Even his worst film, 1995's Showgirls, has a glimmer of redeeming value, but the difference in Spetters is that it doesn't need any.

At heart, Spetters is the tale of two young amateur motocross racers and their mechanic. Along with their girlfriend, their lives are irrevocably altered when they cross paths with a fast food vendor and her brother. The whole film runs like a slice of life, and nothing that happens in real life is too distasteful for the camera.

If you don't want elements of the plot revealed, you can stop reading now.

The film has been accused of being anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-disabled. Once again, Verhoeven gets the last laugh when it becomes clear to anyone who watches it with their eyes open that none of these things are true. The story of one character's sexual confusion is played out in graphic detail, sure, but it is portrayed exactly as it would happen in real life. Sure, not every experience of homosexuality is as negative as in Spetters, but enough are to make this portrayal valid. The main woman of the story simply manipulates the situation or uses it as best she can to escape a situation she wants out of. Any woman with an ounce of strength in her character will do the same. The character who winds up paralysed finds himself reflecting on what he has lost, and it is enough to make him lose all sense of value in his life. Again, this happens every day in the real world.

There is a reason why films by Paul Verhoeven attract a certain kind of fan. Regardless of whether he succeeds or fails with his artistic goals, I have yet to see him sell out to the lowest common denominator. I have also never seen a film directed by Verhoeven where the camera is moved extraneously, obscuring details for fear of what the MPAA might have to say. The viewer is spared no details, even if it might make them turn from the screen in disgust.

If I could sum up Spetters in one word, it would be "relentless". I've seen many a film or television show that claims to show what kind of extreme pressures teenagers or young adults live under. Spetters is the first film I have seen in two decades that even makes the attempt, and better still it comes uncomfortably close. All in all, I consider it worthy of a nine out of ten. There are some elements that seem at odds with what Verhoeven would like us to believe they mean, but the effect overall is surprisingly good. Anyone who wants to see what would happen if they merged realistic versions of your typical Brat Packer film with a realistic version of Days Of Thunder will be well-served by checking out Spetters.

Let me insert a positive comment prior to my trashing one of the plots of the film: I thought it was great the way the filmmakers handled the nudity and sex. I wasn't shocked by it but rather I found it to be natural and expected when it was shown. often I find that movies that shy away from showing sex use its absence to titillate, for example, the well placed prop or hand that blocks the view of genitals. such practices only serve to draw MORE attention to those body parts. In this film, the casual nudity and sex only served to demystify themselves. It was no porno, the point of the film was not sex. Sex was merely one of the vehicles from point A to B. Good work. I'll have to raise my rating to commend the makers for the groundbreaking WAY they told the story. Many films have offensive plots that never make this much of an impact.

Now to my complaint about one of the film's plots: A badly written movie that reminded me of "Valet Girls" and "Angel" ('High school honor student by day, Hollywood hooker by night' not the Buffy spin-off) without their humor. The writing was on level with the porn movies made at the time. (Yes, the porn writing at that time was in it's heyday but it was still bad writing.) To focus on one of the most egregious part of the plot: Even listening to the director's commentary didn't help explain the whole ridiculous and insulting gay-subplot. Ah, so getting gang-raped by a bunch of guys late one night will make you gay the next day. (i wonder if that would work with lesbians?) So maybe sexually repressed heterosexual women could be helped by gang-rape? Once they get banged they'll realize that they like it, will become sexually liberated, and will show up at the rapist's house the next day for some snuggling as Eef did. A component of good writing is that, even if the revelation about a character is surprising, a viewer should be able to go back in the film and realize that it was foreseeable. In this movie there is nothing that Eef did that showed him to be gay any more than were his friends or the viewers. 1. the measurement scene: it wasn't his idea, it's not uncommon, and if that means he's gay, then his two friends are even more gay. 2. The gay-bashing scene: even if it was his idea, his friends and their girlfriends were at least if not more brutal than he was. 3. Failing to get erect for his girlfriend: as he said he was drunk, I'm sure this has affected most of the film's viewers at one time or another, and from the dialog it seemed as if it had never been a problem before. In fact the other couple also had a problem that prevented them from having sex. 4. Watching the gay sex scene: yes, he watched it briefly but immediately his idea was not to relieve himself sexually. Instead his immediate idea was to use it to make money to win the favor of the girl. If watching three seconds of that scene makes him gay it makes everyone of the viewers who watched it gay as well. 5. Does a twenty year old really living in Rotterdam in the 80s need to be reminded that homosexuality is an option? There is porn of every variety on every newsstand in that country. Legalized prostitutes have delineated districts. If he wanted to have gay sex he probably would have by this point.

This seems to be one of the more infamous and divisive of Paul Verhoeven's non-American movies, and I didn't feel great about it by the end. It wallows in misery a lot, and it just gets exhausting at a point. Whether that was the point, I don't know. As cinematic nihilism, it's kind of effective, but if I approach it that way, it makes its point well before it ends.

Comparing it to another early Verhoeven film I watched recently, Turkish Delight, makes Spetters look worse. That film was also dark and quite extreme with its content, but there was a sense of balance, purpose, and (relative) briskness there that made that film generally work.

Spetters is an angry youth-focused film, reminding me of some new wave Japanese movies from the 1960s while also feeling like an effort to revolutionise that kind of film, and the American counterparts from the 1950s and 1960s.

The problem isn't so much that it crosses a line or two (what Verhoeven film doesn't?), but the issue I found was that I couldn't really work out what the line-crossing was for, beyond just being an extended primal scream - filled with nihilism, anger, and shocking moments - of a movie. It has some merit as that, which is why I can't call it terrible, but I still feel like it could've/should've been something more.

I was only twelve the first time I watched Spetters. For that time it was a bit hardcore but at that age that was the kind of movies that made you fantasize. I remember liking this movie from Paul Verhoeven. Now so many years later after rewatching it I can see the story isn't that perfect but it's still a bit shocking for some people. Paul Verhoeven got a lot of critic for this movie. After Turks Fruit and Keetje Tippel, Spetters was the movie too much that made him go to America. I get it that some people got offended by it, even in an "open" country like The Netherlands. Storywise it's enjoyable to watch even though it's not all perfect. The graphic secnes might have been borderline scandalous for that time but they don't bother me at all. It's just cinema. The cast consists out of well known actors in The Netherlands. They all did a good job playing their characters. For 1980 this wasn't a bad movie, for 2021 maybe it's a bit lesser good.

I tried to be open minded, but basically, there are but three reasons to see this film: 1.) for a time-capsule view of political incorrectness, 2.) to see how much less sexually liberated American movies are (and Americans in general), and 3.) to see men get equal time (if not more time) in the full-frontal nudity department. Otherwise, it's hard to find anything redeeming about this. This film goes almost as far as the French film, "Romance", yet it was made two decades earlier. The difference is, "Romance" actually wrapped an interesting story around its explicitness, with more compelling characters and greater emotional depth. At the same time, this movie isn't bad enough to be "so bad it's good" either. Plus you've got the patented Verhoven too-much-testosterone curse, plus really unlikable characters, except maybe one. As usual, women's roles here are thankless, and the main female character seems to feel the only way she can get ahead is with a man she's boffing. This film also deals with gay-bashing and homosexuality as a subplot but it does not handle it sensitively (not surprisingly). An ultimately unpleasant viewing experience, I kinda felt sorry for the actors who appeared in it (one of whom later committed suicide--not to imply it was because of this film). (P.S. There's nothing any more brutal here than what was in "The Accused.")

"Spetters" is a coming of age movie situated in a Dutch medium sized city. Three friends are having dreams of becoming a famous motorcycle racer, just like a successful fellow citizen of them. At the end of the film none of them has realised his dream.

At the time of release "Spetters" caused a lot of commotion in the Netherlands. When I ask myself if today (nearly 25 years later) the same commotion would break out, the answer is mixed. We are certainly accustomed to the level of violence in "Spetters". Regarding the sex scenes I am not so sure. The last decade nude in films has become less rather than more. The biggest problem anno 2024 would be the explicit language of "Spetters". In times of "Me too" and "Black lives matter" we are very sensitive to language that is racist, sexist or homophobic. The language in "Spetters" contains all of them. In defense of "Spetters" I must say that, given the social environment the film is situated in, the choice was between politically correct language or realistic language. Director Paul Verhoeven unequivocally chooses realistic language.

The fact that Verhoeven liked to provoke, and also liked the publicity that this generates, also would have influenced the choice for realistic language. Verhoeven is known as a somewhat sensation seeking director. Fons Rademakers, a famous Dutch director from the previous generation, on the other hand is known for adapting Dutch literature from writers like Multatuli, Willem Frederik Hermans and Harry Mulisch. I think this stereotyping as a director of high culture (Fons Rademakers) and low culture (Paul Verhoeven) is not justified. Also Paul Verhoeven was often inspired by Dutch literature, although by other writers. "Turkish delight" (1973, Paul Verhoeven) was based on a novel by Jan Wolkers, who also assisted in the screenplay for "Spetters". "The 4th man" (1983, Paul Verhoeven) is based on a novel by Gerard Reve.

Apart from the three friends the main character in "Spetters" is Fientje played by Renée Soutendijk. She sells fries from a stand. All the friends are head over heels in love with Fientje. Fientje may not be a "femme fatale" (she does not actively ruin her lovers) but she sure is very opportunistic. She chooses the one with the brightest career opportunities because she doesn't want to make fries all her life. Because career opportunities alternate during the film at the end Fientje has had all of the friends, but she didn't get rid of the fries!

Renée Soutendijk was at the top of her trade in those years. A year later she would not play an oppurtinistic girl from low descend but an idealistic girl from upper middle class in "The girl with the red hair" (1981, Ben Verbong).

This sexually explicit, harsh, bleak drama was one of Paul Verhoeven earliest (and least-known today) films. The director of "The Fourth Man" and "Basic Instinct" probably never got closer to making a slice-of-life type of film, although it still has some scenes that will be "too much" for mainstream audiences. For the first 20 minutes or so, you can't even tell the characters apart, but as you gradually get to know them better, the film gets better, as well. (**1/2)

The film in question is a good proof of changes in mentality and values, it is currently awkward to state that it caused so much fuzz and protests. However, Paul Verhoeven has included too many topics with his own approach full of anxiety, sexuality and violence; as for evenness, versatility is seldom a solution, as viewers see too many sidelines, focusing on main themes is vexed: ridiculing the police and the press, for example, provided no additional value to this coming of age story of three young men dreaming of an escape from their provincial surroundings. Gay theme could have been avoided as well... As for the cast, I liked Renée Soutendijk most, those depicting lads were uninviting to me. Unfortunately, Jeroen Krabbé and Rutger Hauer had too small, although colourful roles.

Nevertheless, Spetters gives a realistic picture of the Dutch youth and values in the end of 1970ies, strongly influenced by disco music, Grease and rise of sexual self-awareness among women. And it was pleasant to watch beautiful Dutch cities without cars parking everywhere, disturbing the view onto canals and houses...

I'm not sure how it was I came across this movie, and I had no especial expectations as I started watching. Paul Verhoeven's name carries a fair bit of weight, as well as those of cast members Rutger Hauer and Jeroen Krabbé. There are strong possibilities for what the narrative could have been, including working class hopes and dreams, coming of age drama, or interpersonal conflict. Alternatively, given the personalities of the characters and some of the specifics of the course of events, if the screenplay honed in one one in particular there are some ponderous (and depressing) themes that could have been explored more heavily. On top of all this, the original music of progressive rock band Kayak catches one's attention straight away with driving, dynamic themes, and is a welcome aspect of the production.

There's a lot about 'Spetters' that's done well. I think the cast give fine performances, and Verhoeven demonstrates capable direction. Cinematography, sound design, production design, stunts, the fundamental orchestration of every scene - it's well made. The writing, sadly, is another matter, because while there's strong potential here, it doesn't necessarily pan out, and that's just the start. The movie is decidedly unfocused: we're introduced to several major characters who get the spotlight at one time or another, but none of them are given due consideration. Big story beats with significant weight feel forced, unnatural, and out of place because they aren't developed, examined, or resolved in a meaningful way. Among those figures we see the most, Rien, Fientje, Eef, and Hans all have character arcs that could have been teased out into larger, longer, more impactful threads. As it is we get shoddy fractions of those arcs, and they're less than convincing as they present.

It doesn't help that the movie doesn't particularly give us any sympathetic, likable characters to latch onto. Hans comes closest, or possibly Maya, but as they proceed in lockstep with their fellows for some of the nastier business in the film, it's hard not to feel like they deserve anything bad to come to them. In other instances characters oscillate between irritating, loathsome, agreeable, and unlikable, or maybe also coming back around to elicit a measure of sympathy, but from the outset they all mostly come across as altogether obnoxious. I suppose one could argue that this is a reflection of the wide complexity of people, but in light of how poorly character arcs are manifested in the first place - and the juvenile, macho attitudes characters possess generally - those complexities are flattened.

And that brings us to the themes that the characters are wrapped up in. 'Spetters' could have been a solid movie about growing up, finding identity, learning what's important, coping with life's difficulties, and so on - themes that have filled many a feature, yes, but they could have been employed here to great ends if the characters had better treatment in the screenplay. We do get additional themes coarsely poking at news media, and how it can be manipulative or exploitative, and religion, with strains useless, fraudulent, or downright hateful. More than anything else, however, what does the most to make a (bad) impression about the feature is the prominent homophobia. It's one thing for a film to include an element of anti-gay bigotry in scene or character writing (or racism or sexism, as is also true here). It's another for a major character to be predominantly defined by such vile views. Worse still is when the very writing of queer characters is emphatically problematic, reflecting the sort of fallacious straw men that homophobic and transphobic politicians invent to incite violence against the LGBTQ+ community. That's exactly what we get in 'Spetters,' however. And again: the character highlighted in this moments has a definite arc, but that aspect of the plot simply isn't fully fleshed out, and so the ugliness overshadows any fruit it could have borne in the narrative.

On the balance I do think 'Spetters' is better than not. I recognize the skill of all involved, and there are enticing concepts in the writing. Unfortunately, those concepts just aren't handled well, and so the flimsy value is deeply mired in crucial weaknesses and abject problems. I'd like to speak still more highly of this, but that would require the screenplay to be overhauled and the picture remade. In every regard you could do a lot worse than 'Spetters,' but as far as I'm concerned, even if you're a diehard fan of someone involved in the production, it's hard to especially recommend this. At the end of the day it's an okay watch if you come across it, but don't go out of your way, and bear in mind some critical caveats.

"Spetters" by Paul Verhoeven is sort of a Dutch coming-of-age movie about a number of teenagers that want to get the **** out a small, depressing and boring town. Nothing new here.

The problem is that this movie can't decide what it wants to be. There are too many serious topics to consider this a comedy, but the characters are way too one-dimensional and the situations and developments are way too absurd to consider this a drama. Some scenes are dead serious, some scenes are (supposed to be) funny, it all goes back and forth in a very awkward manner. I know it's possible to mix drama and comedy in a successful manner, but it certainly isn't happening in "Spetters".

Then, of course, there's an awful lot of sex and nudity. People not from the Netherlands might be shocked how far this movie goes, but then again, I've seen worse in Dutch movies. Suffice it to say that the nudity adds very little and isn't the least bit erotical or tantalizing. It's just there.

Finally, since this is an old Dutch movie, the sound is utterly terrible. The characters all seem to be lip-synching (poorly), the sound effects don't sound right, and the background music is terrible. Although Dutch is my native language, subtitles wouldn't hurt. The acting is decent, though, (there are a lot of famous actors in this movie), at least by Dutch standards.

Paul Verhoeven is great when directing over-the-top action spectacles (Starship Troopers, Total Recall) or dark thrillers (Basic Instinct), but he should probably stay away from drama, comedy, or any combination thereof.

*1/2 out **** stars

I really found much to like about this hard-edged drama. For one thing; its impressionable cast with characters like Rien and Fientje; and sharp cinematography make it a real winner. I enjoy watching this as a double bill with SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER; there are strong similarities between the two. The scenes are shot with a lot of earnestness and validity. I find it ironically saddening that the man who played Rien (Hans van Tongeren) committed suicide in 1982 two years after he played this role at the young age of 28. It's nice to know that Verhoeven has a gift with drama as he does with big action movies like ROBOCOP and BASIC INSTINCT. If you have the means, choose this movie.

'Spetters' begins like one of the countless American teen coming of age "romps" we had to endure in the 1980s (....shudder...), but being a Paul Verhoeven movie things quickly become darker and more subversive. Verhoeven's most recent Hollywood effort 'Hollow Man' was a stinkeroo, but this shouldn't detract from his past achievements. Especially his brilliant output in the 1980s, a decade where mainstream movie making hit a new low (since surpassed I'm sad to say). Verhoeven didn't direct a bad movie in the 80s, which is something very few American directors can say truthfully. Even David Lynch gave us 'Dune' during this period. 'Spetters' is much tougher and confronting than you'd expect from scanning the basic plot line - three young horny guys pursue their dreams which centre around motorcross. That's what makes this movie so surprising and memorable. Verhoeven regulars Rutger Hauer and Jeroen Krabbe pop up in quite good cameos, but the movie is carried by the three young unknown (to international audiences) male leads. All are well cast and impressive. As is the foxy Renee Soutendijk, who would go on to play a major part in Verhoeven's next movie, the brilliant erotic thriller 'The Fourth Man'. 'Spetters' is raw and unpolished compared to many of Verhoeven's subsequent movies, but is definitely worth watching. Another winner from this often maligned director who I'm certain will one day get the attention and praise he deserves.