Mary Poppins Returns
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No consensus yet.
No consensus yet.
All Critics (16)
| Top Critics (8)
| Fresh (4)
| Rotten (12)
It's clear that director Rodrigues has a future as a provocateur. But you may want to decide whether to spend an evening being provoked -- and possibly perplexed. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Often looks like explicit gay pornography thinly disguised as high art.
The gay audience you'd expect the movie to pander to will likely be dismayed by its depraved view of homosexuality.
Despite a couple of memorable scenes, it's boring when it's not kinky.
O Fantasma is boldly, confidently orchestrated, aesthetically and sexually, and its impact is deeply and rightly disturbing.
First-time director João Pedro Rodrigues' unwillingness to define his hero's background or motivations becomes more and more frustrating as the film goes on.
There's this gay garbageman who roams the city at night in a black rubber catsuit and searches out dangerous anonymous sexual encounters. Would you care to invest?
The film may be provocative, but it's also maddening... In the end, the audience is left with a great big WHY?
Like the central figure, the structurelessness of plot and direction, lead directly into obscurity.
It extends the writings of Jean Genet and John Rechy, the films of Fassbinder, perhaps even the nocturnal works of Goya.
This odd, distant Portuguese import more or less borrows from Bad Lieutenant and Les Vampires, and comes up with a kind of art-house gay porn film.
Although purportedly a study in modern alienation, it's really little more than a particularly slanted, gay s/m fantasy, enervating and deadeningly drawn-out.
Darkly sensual and raw, O Fantasma is most daring when refusing to follow a well-defined structure, becoming a series of nihilistic moments that expose the depressing emptiness of an animalistic life yet however frustratingly losing any sense of direction towards its end.
What the F is this film all about, I understand it's an art house film, but to me it seems like a soft core porn. (Due to the excessive nudity and sex scenes minus dialogue) Sex is well explored in the film, but it could have been done better.
My Logline: A Dirty Little Slut with a Forbidden Big Crush. A great art house portrait of loneliness, squalor, and sexual desire. Great anonymous sex scenes and some truly great erotic cinematography very partial to the callipygian lead. (I'd recommend a jerk before you watch this if you're ten percent the horndog that this main character is). There is very little dialogue but swimming pools of unspoken communication, tense as a hard-on and spread like petroleum jelly. The grungy filth is there though; this character is a garbage worker living in the streets, garbage warehouse, and rented rooms who steals from garbage bins for masturbatory articles of clothing and sneaks about his obsession's property. Don't read past the spoiler if you want to watch this. The problem with this film is the ambiguity of the pivotal point which causes the ending of the final act. It's not the (chronologically) non-linear editing of the scenes that bothers me, but the story; BIG SPOILER - I dislike the options of scenarios that are offered regarding the outcome of the capture and rape. Problem: in one scenario (the first scene actually) the guy is lovin Sergio pounding him in the kinky gear (when I first saw it, I didn't know it was non-consensual; I thought it was just some fetish stuff as both parties looked to be having intense pleasure.). In the other, Sergio just drags the guy out to street and leaves him somewhere, the only bit of action being Sergio dry humping him (without the zipper on the latex suit open) whilst securing his bonds. I want to know if Sergio degrades into the animalistic swine he is at the conclusion of the film because he has totally fulfilled his fantasy or he's completely pitifully failed at his attempt. Maybe the point is that both would lead to the ending's savage lack of humanity and loss of identity; that's pretty common of art house, but had I wrote it, I would have definitively picked one and explored THAT subsequent theory instead. Me myself, would be better that he got the more glorified version and fell into such utter despair that he no longer needs to function as a human so reverts to a primordial state, no longer able to exist in the human context, as opposed to failing at such a thing, stooping so low and doing something so primal, causes a human to lose their humanity (this answer is just flatter and more common sense as opposed to revealing like my choice).ADDED NOTE NON-SPOILERmovie is loaded with sexually explicit scenes, plenty of nudity - lots of cok and arse, with some hot sucking and unusual masturbation.
"So Fucked Up" highlight: digging through trash for masturbatory material and then using it in combo with some auto-erotic asphyxiation
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.