Domino

My review was written in August 1989 after watching the movie on IVE video cassette.

Though pretty to look at, "Domino" is a Brigitte Nielsen vehicle that's hopelessly pretentious. Falling between art film and sex pic, Italo import has had a modest theatrical release but is likely to bewilder curious video fans.

With a murky script by Nielsen and frequent Roman Polanski collaborator Gerard Brach, filmmaker Ivana Massetti tries in vain for avant-garde effects and an almost sci-fi atmosphere: all the action is shot on abstracted sets at Cinecitta with even car-driving scenes reverting to process photography. Though the pithy, pretentious English dialog is delivered well by an unidentified cast, none of it makes sense.

Nielsen is Domino, a platinum-blonde beauty (given to wearing numerous dark wigs) who's working on a video documentary about Billie Holiday. We're treated to "You Don't Know What Love Is" and other terrific recordings by Lady Day, plus vintage footage of her, but Massetti's endless homage has little to do with the plot.

There is little action, but a lot of languorous scenes of masturbation) (R-rated in terms of explicitness), Neilsen operating her own video camera and soul-searching talk about sex. Lest this sound like the Italian version of "Sex, Lies and Videotape", note that Massetti has little interest in character interaction -she prefers monologs directed to human sounding boards.

Nielsen sees a silhouetted couple making love in the apartment across the street and a voyeur with a telescope. And she's plagued by obscene phone calls. She wanders around, talks to several beautiful black women and consorts with a sexy sound man. Pic's silliest stretch for philosophical import is her monolog about the meaning of a growing spot on her skin (not shown), diagnosed as dermatitis.

The viewer does get to see plenty of Nielsen's unblemished skin, presumably the film's drawing card. However, unlike a previous Italian effort "Bye Bye Baby", in which her acting was fine, Nielsen's bored line readings here are embarrassing. Rest of the cast is functional, with British thesp David Warbeck popping up as a blind neighbor.

Massetti's visual expertise is evident, with fascinating lighting by Tonino Nardi and some amazing (if occasionally trashy) costumes for Nielsn by Silvana Fusacchia.

Brigitte Nielsen seems to be day-dreaming throughout the whole film, now and then the film is rated 18+, and also she is playing with herself, it is a poor story and this film will not add any importance in the world of (maybe) cult.

The title kind of says it all. I have no idea what this movie is supposed to be about in any way, shape, or form. It's deliberately stylized and makes little to no sense. However, it does have Brigitte Nielsen at her most striking prime, taking her clothes off a lot for little or no reason. The woman has serious charisma and her acting inexperience is not a problem here because the movie doesn't make sense anyway! The European version is much better with far more nudity that's cut out of the American release. If you like how Ms. Nielsen looks it's worth watching. Just put music on or something so you aren't tempted to actually pay attention to what's going on in the movie.

Matt

I worked at a theater that showed this film back in 1989. At the beginning of the day, the film was in a 400 seating capacity theater. By the end of the day, it was moved to a 100 seater. One customer came out of the theater and I asked him how he liked the film. He said, "A sad excuse for a porno movie." Of course, it sparked my curiosity and went to see it 2 days later (The film stayed at our theater for only 2 weeks). To this day, I cannot figure out what the film was about! The acting was INCREDIBLY BAD!!! I came out of the theater more confused than when I went in. A total waste of time and not even worth watching if someone gave you a free copy of the video.

Okay, let's set the record straight: this film was made in the mid 80's when Music videos were still rare and female film directors were even rarer. After the original Director had to drop out, Ivanna Massetti was given the picture. She was a well-respected commercial director in France and this film was her directorial debut. Using the techniques learned from esoteric commercials and music videos she gambled and lost in attempting to tell the story of "DominoÓ visually without much connective narrative. It simply didn't work. But attempting to tell a story without dialogue is still something Directors attempt today, twenty years later, and still fail. The storyline was acutally of a woman named DOMINO, a successful but jaded video director, who having lost the ability to love searches first through her friends and then Paris-by-night trying to find something, anything to teach her to love again.

As regards this being "soft porn" at no time did Ms. Massetti intend or attempt to make this a "soft porn" film. Remember this was Europe where showing nudity doesn't mean it's "porn". And especially not back in the 80's. As regards Ms. Nielson; it's true she doesn't appear very attractive in this film. Which really hurt the film as you need to believe how beautiful this Domino woman is. Her appearance was due to being over weight from a pregnancy. A pregnancy that she lost during the shooting of the film. The film was shut down for two weeks while she recouped.

First time Director, attempts to break the laws of narrative storytelling, a miscarriage during the film shoot and a very nasty and very public divorce from Slyvestor Stalone... Is any of this an excuse why the film isn't that good? Maybe not... To the hard hearted of you out there.