display | more...
This film is noteworthy only for the list of stars who bailed out of it. Madonna was originally cast to play the lead role. She was replaced by Kim Basinger, who also left the film and was successfully sued for breach of contract. The 1993 multi-million dollar ruling against her caused her to file for bankruptcy. This ruling was overturned in 1994. The film had a limited theatrical release before being released to video.

Having seen the film myself, my one-line review is 'You can put a limbless person in a box, but you can't polish a turd.

Enough with the minimal film reviews, people!

I was (un)lucky enough to see this film some years ago. For the benefit of those who have been unlucky enough to not see it yet, I will give a brief description of the plot and major events. Note that the following text may contain spoilers; while IMHO it would be difficult to make the movie any worse, you might not want to read on if you want the (bestial) plot to be a suprise.

Spoilers follow...

Are you SURE you wish to read this?

OK, here goes....

I saw the movie some years ago, so my recollections may be somewhat damaged... if so, sorry!
The plot centers around a doctor and this chick that he has a major, if sick, crush upon - most of the film features just these two people, although the good doctor's erstwhile girlfriend does show up at one point. (They make out with the truncated Helena watching voyeuristically, he fantasises that his girlfriend is Helena, he cums in his pants and sends her away in embarassment. Silly man.) The girl that he has a crush on has some sort of accident near him, and he is first on the scene to treat her injuries. He takes her back to his house, and amputates her leg because it isn't worth saving - then keeps her a prisoner in his home, albeit one that is waited upon hand and foot, while he tries to convince her to have sex with him. As the film wears on, he amputates all of her limbs, and eventually brainwashes her into 'loving' him, whereupon the girl's husband or boyfriend or pimp or something bursts in, discovers what has happened and knocks over a vase which breaks on the doctor's head, knocking him out. When he wakes up, he goes to the hospital where she is, to find out how she is... only to find that she has all her limbs... he dreamed the whole thing while unconscious after the accident. Apart from being a really lame ending, isn't such a plot device (...and then I woke up, and realised it was all just a dream) supposed to be one of the hallmarks of bad writing?

Watching this stinker led me to the conclusion that it is a kinky porno film thinly disguised as an arty flick, succeeding not in either capacity - too little pr0n for porno, and too crappy for an art flick. Take my advice and avoid it like the plague!
With one viewing, I would have agreed that this movie should never have been produced. Then I went back and watched it again (I'm a pervert), and damn! What seemed at first like painful drivel, now made much more sense. The sequencing is unfortunate; Helena's symbolic importance is obscured until the end, at which point it's overshadowed by the cheesy "but then he woke up" device. The parallels between Helena and Dr. Nick's mother should have been better accentuated as well.
Armed with foreknowledge of the dream sequence as such, this movie is reshaped as a disturbing story of a man's sexual inadequacy, heavily laced with Oedipal and castration symbolism. Dr. Nick is obsessed with Helena because she is so like Mother (and the limbless statue): beautiful, sexually appealing, but providing no emotional nourishment. Young Nick didn't get much positive attention from Mother; note the dialogue in the opening party scene: "oh, she didn't mention having any children." Throughout the rest of the movie, Mother is always portrayed as angry or contemptuous. Dr. Nick doesn't love Helena (despite shifty-eyed dialogue to the contrary); he just wants to rewrite his relationship with Mother.
In flashback, when he takes ownership of the family estate, he recalls one of Mother's lovers leaving her bedroom. Mother struts out and sneers, "You were watching me, weren't you." Dr. Nick jogs by Helena's house, and climbs a tree to peep into her window. Dream-Helena derides Dr. Nick for his premature ejaculation with Anne, then points back to his ineptitude in their own one-night stand. These scenes establish Dr. Nick's sexual inadequacy. Anne's reassurances don't help him feel more virile; on some level he senses that he's losing something important by letting Anne gloss over his sexual dysfunction. In this respect, dream-Helena is a tough inner guide, forcing Dr. Nick to face up to his inadequacy.
The whole extended dream sequence, then, is Dr. Nick resolving his love-hunger in an imaginary world where he (literally) has the object of his desire, and the price of that sort of "having": secrecy, shame, loss of his surgical career, loss of Anne's real uncoerced love, fear of Helena's rescue, and the grotesqueness of this ultimate objectification.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.