Sem Controle

rating 8/10

Spetters in dutch has two meanings: "splashes" (of grease, dirt or blood) and "pretty people/hunk".

This movie is quick. To me it's enjoyable as an action movie, but also as a movie like "easy rider", depicting bikers' life in holland of the late 70's. It wouldn't be dutch if there ain't some tits'n'ass in it. But I don't think the movie evolves around it. It deals much more with choices, luck and destiny everyone makes. And that's the reason why i think it's a good movie. Beyond the action sequences there's a moral to be found. I think the story shows many stereotypes of people and let's them all interact realistically. That's the true strength of this movie. and always keep in mind: it's dutch, and up to that time, there were not many action movies made in holland. shortly after this movie Paul Verhoeven went to Hollywood, to my knowledge partly because of the bad dutch criticism to this movie.

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.

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.

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 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.