Luscious (1999)

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

IMDb mark: 7'Vivid' is only good for one thing: to watch Kari Wuhrer take her clothes off. And you can believe she looks fine, if they made a movie with that sole purpose. Anyhow, don't expect an artsy movie with some nudity, expect a nudie flick with some art in it.-Nudity: Like I said, Billie, played by Kari Wuhrer (Salin, in this movie), is naked lots of times. Her nudity lasts for about 20 minutes out of the movie's total runtime of 83 minutes. But the nudity is much better in the beginning, the whole paint thing kind of ruins it later on. 30/38-Actresses: Just two actresses are featured in 'Vivid', the second one being an older woman, much less attractive than Ms. (or is it 'Mrs.'?) Wuhrer. So, after doing the division by two (actresses), and the estimation of attractiveness (for each one)... 17/28-Sex Scenes: I'm no expert at rating such scenes, but I would say they are okay. Like another reviewer suggested, watch for the anal problem that the main character encounters, later in the film. This text refers to the version entitled 'Vivid'. 8/10-Suspense: There is hardly any suspense in this. 1/7-Ending: The ending was well-suited for the film, but not great by any standards. 3/6-Acting: At least they tried. 2/5-Soundtrack: It's not great, but it does its job, which is to accompany the sex scenes, well. 2/2-Genre: This is an erotic film 3/4-->Overall: 66/100Don't consider this movie a box office film deserving a general mark of 7 out of 10; consider it an erotic movie deserving a general mark of 7 out of 10 only as far as erotic movies go. So, this isn't even among the very best of sexy movies. Only some will like it. From Swordlord, 2 swords up!

I find it unusually difficult to comment on this film. Commenting is a process based on two requirements, (a) some knowledge (real or assumed) about the intentions of the promoters and director of the film, and (b) a personal assessment of how far their objectives have been met - unfortunately in the case of "Vivid" it is far from clear to me what were the primary objectives for producing this film. It is listed in the IMDb database as "Genre -Drama". Drama in the conventional sense it certainly is not - the only form of drama for which it might be eligible is erotic drama. Despite a proliferation of early sexual comedies, this category of film was virtually unknown until the 1932 release of Extase. Extase was a much more significant film than Vivid and it is one which I certainly regret I do not have in my collection, but today the most widely known examples of true erotic drama are probably the first three Emmanuelle films. Many attempts have been made to emulate them but few have achieved even partial success, and although a real erotic drama based on the theme of Vivid might well be possible, this film cannot make any pretensions to being such a work. Your collected user comments tend to suggest that to most of its viewers it is no more than a somewhat ordinary sexual comedy, but I feel that the promoters were attempting to achieve much more and that their film has to be assessed against a somewhat higher standard than this.The early scenes show Steve Shellen as an artist suffering from severe depression which has led him to develop very erratic behaviour patterns that appear to be just tolerated by his live in model (Kari Wuhrer). These scenes are totally unbelievable - an artist who tramples wet canvasses into the floor, and even throws cans of paint around, would not live in the reasonably clean and tidy suburban type home which is shown - he would be more likely to be found in a completely decrepit slum type apartment. It is also unlikely that by this stage even the most complacent girl friend would continue to be co-habiting with him in reasonably good humour. However this introduction is quickly left behind, and what follows is primarily a series of sexual couplings carried out by these two actors with both their bodies covered in paint. Without the paint and the artistic theme, this part of the film would probably, with good reason, be regarded as mildly pornographic. It takes more than this to create a successful movie. The ability to simulate any type of physical or emotional activity is part of the art of acting, and I personally see no reason why a simulated sex scene should turn an indifferent comedy into a successful sex comedy. Also, whilst most sex comedies attempt to display nude bodies in a voluptuous manner, a painted body is no longer nude -it may be as well covered as one that has been clothed in exotic fabrics by one of today's leading fashion designers, and it often has much less erotic appeal. In this sense there is relatively little full nudity in this film and I do not believe its producers visualised it as a sex comedy or nudity as its key feature. Rather I believe that they had a wider message in mind. Is it not primarily a satirical comment on the way in which modern art shows, and even major galleries, often promote garbage because they are afraid that it may be important art which they have failed to appreciate? One does not have to go too far to see a pile of bricks casually unloaded onto a white board, or a surface covered by paint which was essentially thrown at it from a distance, being promoted as a modern artistic masterpiece. If the true aim of this film was to parody this type of situation, then it would indeed be a somewhat unsuccessful, but important, artistic work in its own right.In the meantime I fully agree with an earlier comment that it is a great pity Kari Wuhrer has been ignored as a major actress by most of the major film studios. Whatever she is wearing, her very mobile facial expressions can make her into an extremely erotic actress, and this will probably remain true even when she reaches old age. It will be a long time before I forget the scene where she has a can of paint flung over her and initially experiences the inevitable rush of rage and disgust. Her artist partner approaches her and with loving fingers begins to play with the pattern of the paint on her body. Within a few seconds her rage and disgust visibly fade away and are replaced by her love for her partner and her amusement at his stupidity. I believe it was an outstanding achievement for her to show this transition as realistically as she does in this film. Please let us see more of her.As for this film, I repeat that in my view its promoters had serious intentions and did not feature nudity simply to provide eye candy for the viewer. However, as it was released, I can only regard it as no better than a screen version of a typical Harlequin romance - it is quite easy watching, but has no substance.

Steve Shellen and Kari Wuhrer certainly are eye candy, and if they weren't so endearing, it could have been a bore, but they are quite likeable and that makes the film work. I liked the relationship between them, the characters are well drawn and it presents us with a happy ending as well as their lovely bodies writhing about in paint for a good bit of the film. Not too shabby, if you ask me.

The premise is that Kari's artist boyfriend (who'd look like a low-rent Charlie Sheen, if Charlie Sheen himself didn't fit that category) can neither paint nor get it on with his ridiculously good-looking girl - until the day that he throws paint over her. Then they roll around on the canvas in ecstasy and he sells the result for loads of dosh. It's actually very funny, sending up her prim impatience and his tortured-artist schtick with equal-opportunity amusement. There's not exactly a plot, as the film is structured - like the soft-porn movie it basically is - in a series of bonk sessions. But because they're always covered in paint, and tastefully filmed (with Ms. Wuhrer's own breathy songs on the soundtrack), it's quirky and strangely involving. (And very sexy.) Plus, in its own modest way, it brings up all sorts of odd questions about the relationship of art and life and the cost of art to the people around the artist. It also has a very funny and extremely soft-core parody of that increasingly boring staple of hardcore, the Anal Sex Scene. Recommended.