Between Your Legs (1999)

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Blistering performances.

Never mind the salacious title. There's not much simulated sex and no nudity at all. It's not a soft-core thriller. What it is, is nicely executed and confusing.It owes something to Hitchcock, from the credits, which resemble those of Saul Bass, to the lush orchestral score which borrows heavily from Bernard Herrmann, chiefly "Vertigo" and "Taxi Driver." I was half hoping for a lot of the disgusting gratuitous nudity that everyone complains about an it opens promisingly enough -- a group therapy meeting of "sex addicts" in which everyone has a different story. Among the group's member are Javier Bardem and Victoria Avril. Avril's story is that, as a young girl, she helped a butcher tie the knot in his tie just before his wedding. He became excited and balled her three times in the back of the butcher shop. "Everything smelled of meat." Since then she's had one affair after another, even though she's married to a police officer, Carmelo Gomez. I forget what Bardem's story was but it couldn't have been as interesting.Then all sorts of tsuris follows. I frankly was lost. Bardem has a problem with some kind of illegal tapes -- or something. The few clips we see don't look very illegal. One shows an ordinary boxing match. A dead body turns up in the trunk of an unused car, in the front seat of which Bardem and Avril have been spontaneously coupling, so we're told. (We don't see anything.) Avril's husband, the cop, is trying to track down the murderer and, after discovering his wife's affair with Bardem, does all he can to pin it on Bardem. It leads to some tense moments.I don't think I'll describe the resolution. At least I understood it, I think. I still don't know exactly how or why it reaches the point it does, but I'm sure of one thing -- it does reach that point.Bardem is pretty good. I'd only seen him as the cold-blooded hit man in "No Country For Old Men." In that essay, he spoke slowly with a slight gargle in his voice, his face expressionless, his hair combed slantwise over his forehead, his big dark eyes dominating his features. Here, he's a rather ordinary screenplay writer who speaks at a normal tempo and looks like anybody else. I was impressed by the difference in his approach to the two contrasting roles. It's what's meant by "range" in acting.Victoria Avril is now middle aged, no longer the young lady of "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down", but she's still beautifully and unwittingly sexy. She wears a semi-startled expression throughout, as if she were a frightened bird in a cage. It suits the role.There are still several points, some of them important, that I'm unclear on, but I've taken steps to correct this by enrolling in a therapy group that promises to promote viewer comprehension.

I had to watch the film twice to make any sense of the mystery. So many loose ends, and the stories, within stories and so on, only managed to muddy the waters.So here is how I viewed it. Two people meet on a Monday in a sexual addiction support group. That night they proceed to have a mad sexual encounter in the back of a parked car in a parking lot which after a while the film reveals, has a dead body in the trunk. I got from the film, that Javier has already murdered the victim and stuffed him in the trunk and then goes to the support group to pick up an alibi as well as get lines for his scripts that he can no longer get from the phone sex encounters.Here is where the film lost me. What was up with the AIDS infected taxi driver? He is supposed to have taken a packet from somebody for a large sum of money. Could it be that the script and the scrap book that the victim had was being taken out to another country, and that's why the police cannot find any script in their search of the house? The point of the police officer who killed his wife, was inserted as a morality play I think, so that in the end, the husband let's the wife go away without harming her. Ipanema is probably the airlines suggesting that the couple ran off to Brazil to start a new life.The husband / policeman, inadvertently drops the vial containing the pubic hair he finds in his bathroom. That whole vial with the pubic hair thing completely escapes me. How did the hair get into his bathroom and what would that have proved.A thriller alright, but with a lot of loose ends that kept me guessing and confused.

Following in dialogue with the comments of the previous reviewer I will start saying that most films convey the prejudices of the society where they come from. As Bishonen has already mentioned, this film is quite homo-phobic, but you don't notice this until the end. Actually, it is difficult to put all the strings together until the end, and still, they don't all fit nicely. The tension of the drama is broken several times because the film appears to have been heavily edited thus missing a few important components.Yet, probably because of the editing too the film presents just the best acted scenes. They are indeed very well done, with a play of characters that is a pleasure to watch. The movie is sexy without taking too much time showing physical bodies engaged in sex (the first scene is the longest one). The essence of the movie's sexuality is captured in the powerful sexual urges that the protagonists have trapped within themselves, making them their slaves, and the main appeal of the movie.The thriller side of the movie was only good when it was linked with the issue of sexuality. Otherwise it was ordinary, probably because the scrip tried too hard to always hide the true identity of the killer, thus, giving little space for the observer to get deeply caught in the web of tensions.An interesting thing about the movie's narrative is that a story-maker (I say maker because in addition to a story-writer, he also "made" stories) resulted smarter and more cunning than businessmen, sharp detectives and even the "evil" people who were trying to hurt him. He even appears as too "innocent" throughout the film. In most other films when someone is having too much fun and trying to get away with it, at the end such person pays with interests. In this film, however, the conclusion plays out differently.I also felt betrayed at the end when I noticed the strong homophobic sentiment of the movie. It just shows how the Spanish society continues being so conservative. Like the prejudices behind this movie, the first negative reactions in Spain to the movie "Bad Education," where the main actors behave homosexually and bisexually, just serves to prove that a large number of people in Spain are still trapped by the sexual mores of the Catholic Church.But besides the issue of homosexuality, the smoking like chimneys, and the fact that the thriller could have been made better, the movie is one of the best in its genre. I specially liked Victoria Abril's performance. In Abril, the movie took a thirty-something women and made her the sexual object and the central sexual figure of the narrative. This contrasts with Hollywood's productions in which most females playing such roles are teenagers, twenty-something, or extremely glamorous. I think this movie illustrates by contrast how the U.S. society is so obsessed with youth, to the detriment of older women in particular.

"Hommage to Hitchcock"? Are you sure people? Hitchcock has been one of the greatest film directors ever, and his movies are still evocative and compelling today. This is something that we cannot say about "Entre las piernas", for mainly two reasons:1)It completely lacks in imagination. The plot is very predictable at each step, except the last scenes, when we discover the identity of the killer. Overall, we are never thrilled by the story. 2)The main characters are flat, not to speak about the secondary ones... The story starts in the psychotherapy room, but it fails in really explaining the "why" of their illness, which could have been very interesting. The secondary characters are simply ridiculous.Overall, I was very bored by the movie even if the content was meant to be pruriginous. The only notable thing is the skill of V. Abril and C.Gomez as well. You can simply avoid to see this movie, move to something better!