The Lickerish Quartet

This was one of the films that brought Radley Metzger to the forefront of mainstream erotic films. The narrative is interesting and full of tricks. It uses flashbacks, pseudoflashbacks and multiple perspectives. Yes, it's a bit pretentious, but the plot keeps you watching. And how about that library scene? I laughed aloud when I saw it, being comfortably ensconsed in an apartment full of many books I haven't read either. Maybe what I need is a mistress to sweep everything away like that!!

Metzger's porno-existentialist film (or something like that)deals with a family of three, living in a spacious castle, whose comfortable lifestyle is upset by the arrival of a mysterious woman who may or may not be an actress in one of the stag films the husband likes to watch. A woman who may or may not even be real.... But what IS real, anyway...?

Sounds fun, right? Not really. I had the opportunity to see this in a theatre last year (1998). There was nothing but dead silence from the audience all the way through.

Yes, the film is interesting, as all really weird flicks tend to be, but it's also almost unbearably irritating. The acting is clumsy, and the director's painfully obvious desire to make Art (instead of just plain "art") weighs down the whole production. And, good golly, that dialogue: "Your virility is just as illusory as her virginity!"

There's some cool visuals, though. Especially the weird scene in the library wherein the male and female leads make out on the floor, which for some reason is covered with dictionary entries of sexual terms set in large bold type.

Don't you miss the '70s?

It's a pretty adventurous movie, poised rather uneasily between constant arty inventiveness and a distinctly stilted coating of baroque overemphasis that, of course, makes due space for the porno calculations. From the very first scene of the family watching the dirty movies, heard initially as disembodied heads in darkness, there's an obvious hankering after seriousness, and the astonishment is that this ambition never becomes utterly foolish. It's quite a provocative film, and would likely not seem so dated with warmer, more nuanced actors, a less obviously titillating style, and without the unfortunate montages of running through the fields and suchlike to the accompaniment of gooey sixties music. There's ultimately no real revelation though, despite the constant return to doubling and echoing and evocation of the odd relationship between art and life, but it gives the feeling of having been intuitively (more than intellectually) shaped and prodded into something quite coherent. The highly designed library sex scene hardly fits but is memorable in its own right.

The follow up of Camilla 2000, remember, the flick with the moaning girls and the sex scene's who were a bit lame. If we could talk about sex scene's to be honest, but the score made it all better. So with the voluptuous main lead, Silvana Venturelli, from Carmilla the director Radley Metzger went on to this project made in full porn bloom.

Starts off with a bunch of people watching an erotic picture. The erotic flick goes further then Camilla ever did. Silvana goes full frontal and this time the camera shows the girls giving head even as nothing is shown it do offer some soft-erotic parts. We move over to some stunts being done on motorcycles, a bit too long but there the man recognises the girl on the bike as the girl from the erotic flick. He invites her back to his castle, guess you all know what is coming. In the castle the director goes as far as possible with close-ups of Silvana's private parts.

Much better story with the magic involved, excellent filmed. A bit of mystery going on with the films itself which give this flick an uplift. Not bad at all, Metzger's best effort.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 3/5 Effects 0/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

It's hard for me to rate this movie because I have no reference to what porn or sexploitation film was like in the late 60s. This is definitely not one of those seedy production, but actually a decent dramatic movie.

I understand that the director was born in New York, but the movie has European flavor to it. The world was going through the sexual revolution, and many experimental films were created during this period. What I see in this movie is what the French used to call Nouvelle Vague (New Wave) where the reason for the story takes back seat to the unintelligible vagueness that's supposed to enhance the artistry of the production.

Nouvelle Vague didn't last too long as it didn't gather much following, but there were more than few of this type of movies made by Jean-Luc Godard and Roger Vadim. In fact, the film strongly reminds me of Roger Vadim's style of film making.

I have to give credit to the beauty of this film. The director certainly has eyes for keeping interesting and clean appearance to the picture.

How you rate the story of the movie probably differs widely depending on the audience. I kind of liked it for its modern appearance, and interesting story.

It really took me back in time to experience what it was like to live in the '60s and very early '70s. It will probably do the same to you.