Sarah, 30, single, well educated, likes art, places a voice ad for phone sex, inviting replies from men under 35, sturdy and sensual. Wilbert, a chubby middle aged architect, leaves a ...
See full summary »
Sarah, 30, single, well educated, likes art, places a voice ad for phone sex, inviting replies from men under 35, sturdy and sensual. Wilbert, a chubby middle aged architect, leaves a message that he is Thomas, 32 and well formed. A week later, she phones. She likes his voice, he likes her laugh, so once a week she phones him (he's not to know her last name, where she lives, or her number). Portraits emerge of humor and sadness. He presses for details of her life and tells her about his work; she wants these Thursday calls to be fantasy and release, separate from the rest of who she is. The film dramatizes these tensions of lies and truth, connection and distance.Written by
Yaaaawn! I'm so sick and tired of all these wannabe controversial directors and their supposedly 'groundbreaking' cinema ideas! Give it up boys; you're not shocking anybody with your lame crap! Here we have a new prodigy from the Netherlands Theo Van Gogh who thought it would be a cool idea to shoot a film about two people nagging over the phone the whole time. A middle-aged divorced man responds to an ad in the paper, placed by a younger woman who offers phone-sex. They make it weekly appointment and they quickly find out their whole lives turns around these weekly conversations now. They masturbate to each other's voice, argue about whether they depend on each other or not and then masturbate some more. Very boring and utterly annoying. Maybe it could have worked as a 5 (or max. 10 minutes) sketch in an educational talk show or something, but not as a full-length film. And most of all: you get the feeling that you're not supposed to see this! It's voyeuristic and low not the least bit artistic
9 of 34 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this