Spetters

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.

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.

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.

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

'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.