Devil in the Flesh begins with a distraught woman on a rooftop. She is crying and barely forming intelligible words. People soon become aware of her, and plead with her to come down. The movie then cuts to one year earlier, and we learn of her tragic backstory that lead her to where she is now. Just kidding. The scene ends there, it has nothing to do with the story, and it is never mentioned again. In some ways, that is totally appropriate for this film: all journey, no destination. Even the journey is pointless. I learned of this movie because it was supposed to have been so shocking and controversial. Why, because Maruschka Detmers sucks Federico Pitzalis' dick? Allow me to unclench my pearls. Sorry, but this was made in 1986, not 1886. What was shocking about this? Okay, what is the actual movie about? Well, it's a mess. We follow Giulia. Her husband seems to be a political prisoner - not really sure, it's never fully clear what's going on there. Giulia meets Andrea - he's eighteen, which never adds to the story, since Giulia is like late 20s, early 30s - and they immediately "fall in love." Big surprise, Giulia is - to use a clinical term - crazier than a bag of cats. Though, seriously, she has BPD. Coincidentally, Giulia's psychologist is Andrea's father. Rest assured, it adds nothing to the story. There is, however, an odd moment where Giulia shows up naked in his office, but I took it to be a fantasy... it's just never made clear why. Are you seeing a pattern here? Another big problem is the movie will just linger on shots of people, as if we are supposed to extrapolate meaning based on their acting alone. It's as if the director wanted to test the bounds of "show, don't tell," and failed spectacularly. Look, a good actor can say everything just with a simple change of expression, however no one can do that if there is not already a clear story laying the foundation. I'm not a mind reader. Take the best actor in the world, have them cry, if I don't know why they're crying, nothing more is conveyed than what is shown. What is there to like about this? Well, Maruschka is nude through about half the movie, and she ain't bad lookin'. I'd really have to blame the director for this train wreck, because somewhere in here there's a good story. I really hate movies like this.
Review by BronsonBlockedParent2023-09-18T19:26:04Z
Devil in the Flesh begins with a distraught woman on a rooftop. She is crying and barely forming intelligible words. People soon become aware of her, and plead with her to come down. The movie then cuts to one year earlier, and we learn of her tragic backstory that lead her to where she is now. Just kidding. The scene ends there, it has nothing to do with the story, and it is never mentioned again.
In some ways, that is totally appropriate for this film: all journey, no destination. Even the journey is pointless.
I learned of this movie because it was supposed to have been so shocking and controversial. Why, because Maruschka Detmers sucks Federico Pitzalis' dick? Allow me to unclench my pearls. Sorry, but this was made in 1986, not 1886. What was shocking about this?
Okay, what is the actual movie about? Well, it's a mess. We follow Giulia. Her husband seems to be a political prisoner - not really sure, it's never fully clear what's going on there. Giulia meets Andrea - he's eighteen, which never adds to the story, since Giulia is like late 20s, early 30s - and they immediately "fall in love." Big surprise, Giulia is - to use a clinical term - crazier than a bag of cats. Though, seriously, she has BPD. Coincidentally, Giulia's psychologist is Andrea's father. Rest assured, it adds nothing to the story. There is, however, an odd moment where Giulia shows up naked in his office, but I took it to be a fantasy... it's just never made clear why.
Are you seeing a pattern here?
Another big problem is the movie will just linger on shots of people, as if we are supposed to extrapolate meaning based on their acting alone. It's as if the director wanted to test the bounds of "show, don't tell," and failed spectacularly. Look, a good actor can say everything just with a simple change of expression, however no one can do that if there is not already a clear story laying the foundation. I'm not a mind reader. Take the best actor in the world, have them cry, if I don't know why they're crying, nothing more is conveyed than what is shown.
What is there to like about this? Well, Maruschka is nude through about half the movie, and she ain't bad lookin'. I'd really have to blame the director for this train wreck, because somewhere in here there's a good story.
I really hate movies like this.