Monamour

I watched this with my girlfriend. We've never seen a Tinto Brass movie before and just stumbled over this one at the local video store. At the backside of the cover it says "erotic-thriller" by a "cultdirector". And as we like both (erotic and thriller), we decided to give it a try.

It wasn't anything like we expected. My girlfriend hated it because of the awful sex-scenes. There was no erotic, no thriller and no plot at all, just a poor actress committed to an old mans chauvinistic fantasies. Men don't talk in this movie, the only grab the poor actress's ass, pussy or tits, which is followed by sudden sexual intercourse. And women only talk about the size of penises and the need to have sex again. This movie fells like it has been written in 2 hours after watching a porn-movie.

I'm pretty sure this was our first and last Tinto Brass 'cultmovie'-experience.

Watching people behave with sex only on their minds without any care for social norms at all. You will find no class or style in this movie. Another tit and bum factory piece of work. The musical scores were as bland and the many empty sets and settings. It is in fact an old mans wet dream acted out by middle aged actors that lacked any passion at all, which is what the movie tries to sell and does so very poorly. It's just smut.

This is not Tinto Erotic Genius, this is a fragmented re edition of his last movies from "Così fan tutte" to "Fallo!" What I have noticed watching this last movie of Tinto carrier is that there is a re edition of same sex scene and stories that this time where TOTALLY fragmented and non sense. If I think about it I just see this young Ukraine actress with her bouncing ass and boobs, and that's it.

What I have to say is that I do not agree with the decision to use a WAY BAD actor in the role of the lover, especially when before him Occhipinti did. Occhipinti performance in The Key and Così fan tutte were genius and well done. INSTEAD this time actors are so bad!!! the acting is horrible, light are horrible, screenplay is stupid and horrible, photography not at all like I remember it in the past Tinto Movies and I would say the only thing to save are the paintings. that's it.

I didn't like this movie at all and I'm sorry to Tinto to which I usually give a from 6 to 8 score. This time is 3/10. He had to finish his carrier with Fallo!, this is a useless and nonsense film which I think He has done just for movie or forced by someone else who wants to make movie on him and his name.

Hopefully Tinto won't dare to make another movie.

Delivering on the strengths of beloved director Tinto Brass in seemingly his final feature film of his career. After watching his prior 1992's film, both films are somewhat similar in styles, tones and overall erotica of explicitness. However that film's leading woman was a lot more likeable as opposed to the lead in this film "Monamour" who simply comes across as manipulating her ways throughout with teases of each men for her desire. As with his style, there are constant random close up shots to woman's bottoms and privates', and brief explicit scenes. The plot flows as an art house soft core with minimal dialogue.

I watched a poorly dubbed version of what could be described as a soft porn type movie, and honestly, I kind of enjoyed it. The bad dubbing made the dialogue so awkward and nonsensical that it became unintentionally hilarious. The voice acting was completely off, and the lines often didn't make any sense in the context of the scenes, which only added to the fun. It felt like a comedy at times, as the mismatched voices and strange dialogue choices created some laugh-out-loud moments. While the plot itself wasn't anything special, the bad dub definitely gave it an amusing twist, turning what could've been a forgettable film into something more entertaining.