Watch Sweet Movie For Free

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

This was the movie Makavejev made after his previous, WR:Mysteries of the Organism, got him exiled from his home country.I'm surprised this one didn't get him exiled to the moon.It is truly one of the most bizarre movies you will ever see, an orgiastic feast of sugar, blood, urine, faeces, vomit.It's a creative explosion, and ranks up there with Salo in terms of revolting content - in actual fact, it tops Salo. At least they didn't really drink urine.The story has two narratives: a beauty queen voted "best hymen" is urinated upon by a billionaire with a golden penis. A humungous black man takes her to his house inside a giant milk bottle and packs her up in a suitcase and sends her to Paris. There she has sex with a Latin singer and their genitals lock together. Somehow she ends up at a commune where men and women eat and spit food into each other's mouths, drink each other's urine and defecate onto silver dishes. The beauty queen is breast fed; indeed it seems that the purpose of the commune is to help people revert to childhood; one man is naked and has food rubbed all over his body while he urinates to the applause of his audience.The beauty queen ends up acting in an ad for chocolate sauce where she is covered, completely naked, in the stuff, writhing around as though masturbating.And I haven't even gotten to the other part of the story yet: a woman piloting a boat with Karl Marx's image on the front filled with sugary treats, luring men and boys to their death inside. At one point, in what may be the movie's most controversial scene, boys no older than twelve sit stationary while she dances almost naked, grinding her genitals on one boy's forehead.I may have little idea what all this means, but I've certainly never forgotten it, or failed to be enraptured by it.

Back in the days when I was a sapling - by which I mean I was still developing and the sap was constantly on the rise - I was always up for a good Art film. This was because it was the late 60s, and it was a good bet that I would find something in an Art film which wasn't easily available elsewhere, namely moving images of naked women. The endless quest for naked women, though not yet extinguished, has abated somewhat over the years, and I am now better able to assess Art films without such matters obscuring my judgement. And my conclusion is as follows: some of them are, indeed, art, but many of them represent their maker following a particular vision which is not necessarily obviously apparent to the audience. I am not a deep person, obscure visions do not suddenly reveal themselves in clarity to me, and Art films therefore frequently strike me as pretentious rubbish.Dusan Makavejev has certainly been among the trailblazers of personal visions, and that is the case here. I do not have the vaguest idea what he is trying to convey in this strange, almost plot-free collection of sequences, many of which seem calculated to make the audience challenge their conceptions of what can be considered acceptable viewing. The extraordinarily beautiful Carol Laure goes through a series of increasingly odd experiences until she ends up pleasuring herself while writhing around stark naked in liquid chocolate in a sequence which surprised me at how explicit it was, particularly for 1974, and especially given that it was intended for public exhibition. And this was one of the the "normal" bits. Murder, war crimes, borderline paedophilia, and bodily waste all feature as one continues trying to a) keep one's dinner down and b) figure out what it all means.I'm no wiser, but I am sure that it's not entertainment.

Please disregard any preconceptions you may have regarding this film. Anyone who attempts to find artistic merit in this film are simply telling lies to become exclusive. The world of artistic cinema is a very elitist camp and you are not welcome. There is no plot, so story, simply abstract imagery. You'll read comments stating that this film is a stark look at humanity and that it's nihilistic nature is set out for us to introspectively and retrospectively review the nature of the human condition. This film is awful. It was a tool used in the seventies for those "art types" to further separate themselves from the common man. It is dated exploitation. There is no redeeming factors in this film at all. You will waste your time watching this film. I can assure you, my friends and I enjoy all kinds of film, foreign cinema, the most disturbing and violent films, ridiculous American comedy, Anime, drama, etc... and we can comfortably agree, this is one of the most terrible things we've ever seen.Avoid.

First thing, this movie will certainly not be pleasant to most viewers. Even those who will like it (if they are any) or those who will find something interesting in it will still be left in a state of disorientation (and disgust). Contrary to many comments seen around, I really think one can make sense of this film. It helps to know that it was inspired, in part, buy W. Reich's psychology. This film aims at pushing to its limits the boundaries of the two world views (Weltanschauung) that dominated intellectual life in the 1970's western world: the bourgeois capitalist society and its anti-thesis named communism which is here presented bluntly in text and song or through the romantic experience of a commune (although the commune is everything but romantic!). The two women, who hold the narrative together, present each one of these world views. They reject both the conformism of bourgeois society (well, it is not totally conformist in this movie but I'll let you find out…) and the rigidity of communism. The bourgeois (the first woman's husband) is obsessed by cleanliness, has very bad knowledge of history (or reality?) and is incapable of sexually satisfying his wife (or rather his ways of satisfying them are not up to her standards – or any one else's by the way!). The commune members are obsessed with bodily fluids (all of them! which in a certain way, they share with the bourgeois), transgressing bourgeois values (showing that abundance often – if not always - makes you sick) and sexualizing every aspect of life. One of the key moments in the film is when the bourgeois woman leaves capitalism (exposed metaphorically through, for example, a game show and a helicopter ride over Niagara Falls). After a trip to Paris in a briefcase, she enters a commune in which she is incapable of feeling at ease as her new «friends» indulge in eccentricities for which she would not have imagined (or, analytically speaking, going back to them). The same thing happens albeit differently to the woman from a communist country. Travelling the world in a Marxist boat (that is a boat which has a huge head of Karl Marx on the front) she enters – almost dreamlike - a society of abundance metaphorically shown by the boat being full of sugar and candies. If the capitalist woman left her world for its antitheses – a commune - and stays incapable of satisfying her sexual desires (take note that she always seem to go back to were she came from although with different people and situations) – the communist one needs to seduce revolutionaries and pre-teens for that (she is sexually satisfied though – or so we are left to believe). But, in the end, she has to kill all who are seduced (does she have to destroy what gives her satisfaction?). The movie ends in a certain synthesis of those world views, as we see our capitalist woman sexually satisfying herself in a bath full of chocolate for television (again, she returns to were she started – on television). This movie, it seems to me at least, is much about creating discomfort in the viewer (maybe in a slightly Brechtian way, though without breaking the fourth wall, but certainly by creating discomfort). It also criticizes both capitalism and communism, nothing is left intact it seems. They are no clear winners. That is one of the reasons for which it is not for everybody. Yes, they are lots of graphic scenes which will, to say the least, shock most people, but those who limit their commentary to those scenes seem to miss the point completely. What will destabilize most viewers is that after all of this (and I haven't written about everything that we see), it does not try to answer any questions. What in the end is good or bad, Capitalism or Communism? I'm not saying this movie is great, but it got me thinking a lot. In such, this makes viewing it possibly rewarding (even if some of the scenes are really disgusting and others are plain silly). And depending on your sense of humour, you can get a good laugh at it - it got me laughing more than once.