Not what you expect. How much do famous names mean in human history? Here, for example, you see a movie about a person whose name you know and think, curiously, how can you remove something from his life?
Josephine Mutzenbacher, this is the case. I do not think that this literary character is well known to the general public, because the story about her, invented more than a hundred years ago, belongs to the genre, which is not peculiar to mention in decent society and decent people. So, porn.
Oh, sorry, an erotic novel.
In fact, this is what the data, let me say, novels tell. In fact, this is just a set of the most frank sketches on the topic of how one Viennese prostitute came to life like this and what manners reigned in Vienna of that (and not only that) time. Being close to the so-called erotic literature, both as a reader and as an author, I could not ignore one of the most famous examples of this genre. Very mediocre from a literary point of view. . .
So what am I talking about? The film under review has a proud name, one way or another made into the title of all three stories mentioned above, but there is one serious nuance - they are all written in the first person and are supposedly books of memories of this Viennese prostitute. In fact, you would expect the same from the movie. But no.
Firstly, Josephine herself in the film appears as a secondary character, who does not particularly affect the narrative. It seems that the authors initially did not plan to include it in their history, and would have calmly cost any other owner of the brothel, but someone decided, as they say, to hypa on the well-known “brand”.
Secondly, history itself is very indirectly correlated with the everyday writing that appears before the reader in books. From more or less similar, except that closely related contacts, and even then in a very smoothed form.
In short, all the value of the name put into the title and the expectations associated with it is nothing more than an advertising ploy.
But what then is in front of us?
In general, a very mediocre and fictional comedy, densely mixed with very even tolerable eroticism, which for some reason is called “light pornography”. However, since there is no clear definition of the term pornography, I believe that everyone can decide at their discretion.
And the main question in all this is whether to start watching this tape? And the answer to it will depend on what you actually expect from her? Muntzenbacher already told me about the connection with Josephine, she's here, consider it not. About comedy, too, and her here, characteristically, is also not particularly. In any case, personally, I did not even have a desire to smile, which does not indicate the poverty of the film, or any of its inferiority. It's just that there's no comedy here. And the erotic remains.
There is a lot to talk about here.
Actresses first. Almost everyone is good and for almost every taste. Very young girls and ripe aunts, slim and fat, bushy, innocent and experienced, blondes, brunettes, redheads. In general, almost the whole set.
Besides the nudity in the film... not even much... I would say the film is pretty much all about it. But at the same time, there is no exploitation of nudity, as was typical of American films of the 90s.
If I didn’t know when this movie came out, I would definitely think it came from somewhere in the 70s, most of the first half of the 80s. And the films of that time, as for me, have their own special charm.
In general, I can say that I, as an erotomaniac, liked this picture. Light, unobtrusive, quite frank in places, but surprisingly not going. Stupid - yes, played - more than, but from eroticism personally I do not expect any soulful acting and powerful drama.
Again, despite the fact that I understand all the playfulness and simplicity of this tape, I liked the film.
5 out of 10