Kitty Tippel

Seriously, judging by this film, you'll be molested and forced into prostitution the moment you step off the boat/plane etc.

If you have ever watched Robocop, Total Recall or Starship Troopers and thought to yourself "Man, I wonder what would this director would be like giving us some sort of period drama set in the 19th century Holland starring Rutger Hauer, and I'd love to see his arse, balls and especially him licking melted chocolate off someone else's tongue", then this is the film for you!

I mean if that doesn't sound funny enough already, you've got drowned puppies, mothers forcing their kids into prostitution, Jimmy Saville types trying to get young Jimmy to show them his tummy banana, and a woman dying of tuberculosis just after having been molested by a doctor. Jesus, what else do you want from a comedy? Maybe this film wasn't a comedy. I don't know. It was kind of worrying that every single person in Amsterdam wanted to molest Katie. Seriously, everybody wanted a bit. She was even molested by an orderly in the hospital so that she was clean enough for the doctor to molest her. Twice.

For me, the most worrying part was when Katie worked for the hat guy and was doing shadow puppets on the wall and I thought to myself 'wouldn't it be hilarious if the next shadow you saw on the wall was the hat guy's tadger' and then lo and behold we get to see the shadow of an erect slag hammer on the wall. Man, I have the same mindset as the guy who directed Showgirls.

This film is too well made and has too high of a budget to be crap and is in a certain kind of way entertaining. It's grim stuff, but I can see why Paul went on to be a hot shot director. Rutger also worth a look here but he's dubbed, which only adds to the madness.

And this was a true story? F*cking seriously?

I came across this film under the title "Hot Sweat" at my local video store, and rented it out of curiosity; I had seen many movies by this director, and always thought his work was severely underated. The movie really surprised me with it's unsensationalistic style and well done cinematography. Although the female lead is very beautiful, and manages to get undressed frequently, there is always a tension to her sexuality...she is forced to rely on it only because the audience is clearly made aware that on the other side is the penniless abyss. Rutger Haur plays totally against type as a foppish young bank officer who adopts her as his mistress.

I think most people today think of Holland as a totally liberal and affluent country. This film goes a long way towards dispelling that stereotype, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a (sometimes brutally) realistic picture of 19th century life among the underclass in Amsterdamn. I liked it.

If you like Paul Verhoeven's later work (Robocop, Total Recall, Black Book), you should take the time to delve into his Dutch language work.

This is a serious work showing class differences in 19th Century Holland, and the total lack of concern for workers. The title character takes a slew of meaningless jobs after the family is forced to move to the city, eventually ending up as a prostitute to survive.

Hearing the typical "streets paved with gold" dreams that were typical of America at that time, we can totally relate to those driven from their farms.

Women were certainly toys for men, even doctors, to play with, and rape, if they chose.

It was interesting to see Rutgar Hauer in a role as a gentlemen, and the experience of Monique van de Ven was not to be missed.

This feels quite a bit like a spiritual sequel to one of my favorite movies of all time, which I also perceive as perhaps the most underrated movie I can think of, Paul Verhoeven's debut feature film, Turkish Delight. This is also directed by Verhoeven and has the same two leads, the iconic Rutger Hauer in some of his earliest roles, and the utterly beautiful and charismatic Monique van de Ven. I guess there's a bit of a swap as Hauer is the main character in the previous, while van de Ven is most certainly the main character in this.

I expected less from this hardly-referenced second offering from Verhoeven, considering it's never even spoken of, but the combination of van de Ven's electric allure with that of Verhoeven's provocative, fast-paced directing keep this film riveting through every sequence. On paper, you'd think it might be a slow-burner, but it hardly ever feels the part. In summary, it's quite a simple film - a poor girl who is the eldest child in her extremely impoverished family seeks more out of life, and slowly, through recognizing the power of her own allure, amongst other things, she begins connecting with people who are a little bit richer, or a little bit more powerful - and so she makes her sporadic journey into higher society rather suddenly. Of course, one can only "pretend" to be something for so long...

If you're watching for Hauer, you'll find much more within his performance in the other early gems of Verhoeven (Spetters is another great one...I've yet to watch Soldier of Orange - That's the last of Verhoeven's Dutch classics remaining for me), but this film is absolutely worth watching regardless. There are bundles of intriguing, stylish, innovative, and very memorable sequences scattered throughout it. Specifically, one featuring a giant vat of intimidating green liquid, and one where many people are being shot in a dark alley!

All of Verhoeven's Dutch classics are more than worth exploring. This is no different. Fully on par with Spetters and The 4th Man. I love Paul Verhoeven films - he's truly one of the best that cinema ever had.

"Keetje Tippel" is one of Verhoeven's lesser known movies but it really deserves to be seen and better known, all over the world. Reason why it isn't known better is I think because of "Turks fruit" from 1973. After that movie people expected this movie to be a sort of "Turks fruit 2", also because it was once again directed by Verhoeven and had Monique van de Ven and Rutger Hauer as the two main leads. "Turks fruit" and "Keetje Tippel" (and in a way also Verhoeven's earlier movie "Wat zien ik") show some similarities in the way the story is told but it are in fact of course two totally different movies.

The movie provides a pretty good and insightful view of life in late 19th century Amsterdam. The atmosphere of the old Amsterdam is perfectly captured by Jan de Bont's cinematography and by the costume design and art direction.

What makes "Keetje Tippel" better than the average period drama is the directness of the story telling. This is of course thanks to Verhoeven's typical style of directing that always is very direct and straight to the point. Once more the movie features quite some nudity and confronting scene's. But it all works well because it serves a purpose in the movie and it's obviously not only put in it to simply shock the viewer in a cheap way. The movie however is quite short and it didn't feel that the movie covered the entire story and the ending is abrupt and not entirely satisfying because it still leaves a bunch of questions unanswered.

The acting isn't always top-class but this is more because of the simple dialog, rather than its the actors their fault. Rutger Hauer however deserves credit for his role and he plays his character in a very believable way. Monique van de Ven is good for about 70% of the time but her acting really pushes it at times and her character at times goes a bit too much over-the-top. The movie further more features a good supporting cast.

The story is always interesting and you never know what is going to happen next, thanks to the unpredictable and realistic characters that are being portrayed in this movie. The movie is based on the real life of Neel Doff, which gives the movie an even more realistic and confronting feeling.

Better than your average period drama's. See this movie if you get the chance.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/