Such a frustrating disappointment

Just perfect...

A Brilliant Conflict

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Most of this movie plays out as porn with the story of a love triangle where the girl in it Carla could have a good woman called Moira but she wants to be with an abusive overbearing jealous man who thinks relationships she had before she even met him means that she cheated on him once.The acting is bad and some of the scenes are way over the top. Everyone just has sex everywhere all the time apart from the whiny little girl called Matteo who looks like a boy.People try to say this is a good movie, but in my opinion it is no different from the heaps of other B movie porno themed movies that are going around.8/10 for the hot porn scenes but the story it tries to have is just garbage.

I find it funny that Tinto Brass - an Italian native - decided to place his most colorful and cheerful movie in years, of all places, in gray and rainy London. Even if we dismiss the fact that Brass apparently has a rather poor control of English, and didn't bother to check his dialog (what does the constable mean when he shouts "Who's in charge?" over and over again?) Trasgredire really doesn't look like it's set in London; but it looks better than Brass's silly, almost naive softcore erotica did in years. It's beautifully shot and lush with color; the opening sequence alone is worth the whole thing - it's sweet, sexy, funny, fast-paced and very much sets a cheery, light-hearted tone for the rest of the film. Tinto's work is always best when he doesn't take himself seriously, and Trasgredire is a movie that demands to be taken with as little seriousness as possible. It results in several scenes that manage to be erotic, arousing and very funny at the same time - other than the opening sequence, the phone scene also pops to mind.Unfortunately, all of those scenes are in the first half of the film, and it falls apart in the second half, where - as he so often does - Tinto ruins it with a poorly conceived plot and a pretentious attempt to make some kind of point about human sexuality, which he has been pushing, in slight variations, over and over again at least since 1992's Cosi Fan Tutte. Even more irritating is a scene near the end which echoes the opening scene in the park, but rather than giving it any profound meaning, just spoils the harmless, naive fun of the first sequence. Nevertheless, it's still fun and very easy on the eyes, and one of Brass's best works in recent years.

The movie started out with much explicit sex in a park and keeps getting graphic as the movie progresses, very refreshing compared to most of the "unrealistic" silly porn flicks out there. Cheeky doesn't try to be what it isn't in that it doesn't try to go into a mystery or thriller when all it is is a skin flick. The nudity in this isn't offensive (except to prudes) and although very graphic at time (T n A n P) it's never inappropriate or gratuitous; a refreshing erotic masterpiece for Tinto Brass!In short, this is not a family flick, but it isn't offensive or vulgar in its soft-core glory; a true gem of erotica.. too bad it's in Italian, I hate reading my movies!

Some films are simply about the appeal of one character. That's all that matters.There seem to be two types: those that depend on the charm of attractive women, and those that have to work some other engagement. Often that's the acting challenge.I'm thinking in particular of Audrey Hepburn and "Funny Face." The story and all else is there only to showcase the woman; She is only there for us and we for her. Soft porn should be the place we see much of this, simply because it affords a wider set of seductive options. But it just isn't so. I think there are several reasons for this. When a film is marketed as smut, expectations aren't very high and what you usually get is something that is measured as less than "the real thing."Tinto Brass, in some of his later films tries to make something genuinely seductive I think, something that is itself. And he has a good eye, a good cinematic sense. Unfortunately for me, what he thinks is seductive in terms of body types doesn't score. Its a cultural thing.But what he aims for is casual intimacy, the type of casualness that isn't deliberately seductive, but the center of being of the woman. So when you see the nude actress, it is more likely to be her lounging around the house. Its a study in a woman.A second reason you see this so little is, well, there are few women on screen who can charm like say Audrey Hepburn. The ones that can act go to a different market. The ones who can't end up in the higher paying "adult industry." So it must be quite a challenge for Brass to find a woman sufficiently natural in a sexual appeal to built a film around.The story in this case if you don't know it is that he found this woman as a waitress in a pizza place and charmed her into the role. She IS successful at being what he needs, apparently because its what she really is. So in a way, its a documentary, if you subtract out the story, which you'll do even if you aren't interested in the process.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.