Terrible, even for an erotic film. Having listened to the podcast "My Dad Wrote A Porno," I know a thing or two about shitty erotica. The performance of the "adult son" is particularly awful. Unimaginative imagery - the cross cutting between fellatio and the painting of a serpent eating a man was pathetic. Some nice locations. Stay away.
THE LICKERISH QUARTET, aside from having the best name ever for an erotic movie (Metzger's own THE OPENING OF MISTY BEETHOVEN being, ahem, stiff competition), is a decadent translucent fugue. Though it is not smut, it is also, of course, not not smut. The sex is awkward and stilted, winningly, as though shy Lady Cinema were losing her virginity. The whole thing is oddly redolent of Alain Robbe-Grillet.
Incredible cinematography and editing throughout. The scene where it keeps jumping between a slow shot of a door opening slowly and a shocked face left me horrified, despite not being a horror film. There's great imagery here and it's worth multiple viewings.
I thought this was aimng for a more phantasmagorical direction at first, using the son's magic and phobias and the girl's shifting identity to turn this into a psychedelic '60s experience. But it become more an ode to the libidinous, swinging '60s, with the girl turning on each member of the family and presumably opening their minds. A campy diversion.
Film was a unique classic of intimate love making. The movie had badly dubbed voices due to the fact it was shot with no sound. But the movie provides many interesting events that the dubbed voices are looked over. The art is subtle and provides meaning to each scene or the film in general. The ending wraps up nicely with reasons for different images that are edited in throughout the film.
A good film, but not without it's fair number of weaknesses. The biggest issue I had with it was the heavy handedness of some of the key plot points. This peaked at the library sex scene, with the excessive cuts to the dictionary print on the floor. But regardless, there is still some incredible moments. This is especially found in the camera work and overall tone of the film rather than the acting or dialogue.
Early 70s Freudian Twilight Zone soft-core, touching on heady Lacanian notions of image, projection and fantasy, that are really, really hard to take seriously when the alpha male lead has some pretty distinct Wallace Shawn in the Princess Bride traits going on. Beautifully shot on location at a 700 year old castle in Italy; watch for the opulence, the camerawork, that motorcycle daredevil scene, and film history.
You guys don't worry, its not like Jean Rollin at all. I feel like the people sipping the Hater-Aid on this one are missing the point. Its a surrealist/absurdist melodrama that satirizes lust and the wealthy. It shows sex in a far too ridiculous way to be taken at face value. Metzger is highly accomplished technically.
An odd movie, watchable mostly for where it fits in film history. It was a tepid step toward finding the limits of what they could get away with in a mainstream film. This was back in the days when X-rated films were allowed in respectable movie houses. It wouldn't be rated X today. I'd call it a hard R, but that's giving it too much credit.
I think Andy Warhol was being perverse when he called this a masterpiece. The acting is awful, the creepy factor is super high, and the story is lame. Of course, it's probably not fair that I review it after bailing after 15 minutes, but if it had been better, I wouldn't have bailed.
An appealingly gussied up lead balloon that, projected against its own times, may have seemed to catch and release some cool air to some. Perhaps it just caught me in a censorious mood, but setting the film's gaudy aristo-psychedelic visuals to one side, its pleasures seemed restricted to unintentional comedy (fine as far as it goes) and insights into sexuality and psychology at least as dull as its line readings.