The Ages of Lulu (1990)

Actor and actress have a natural action , movie with some sensitive scene but so attractive.Thank you

Aptly described as "pretentious, repellent pornography," The Ages of Lulu is a film you really could do without. Indeed, not only does Spanish director Bigas Luna's (he of Jamón, jamón, Golden Balls and The Tit and the Moon fame) film fire hugely clear of the mark in its attempt at sexually heightened drama, it also suffers from a dodgy cast (Javier Bardem, what were you thinking?), lame acting and a wholly unrealistic plot. Not to put too fine a point on it, then, you'd be better served boiling your head than watching this hyper-sexual and highly explicit 'art house' trash.On the DVD: The Ages of Lulu is transferred at an anamorphically enhanced 1.78:1 and image quality is very good, though in some scenes very slightly soft. The film can be watched with or without English subtitles, and the sound is unremarkable stereo. The main extras are a seven-page essay on Bigas Luna and five pages detailing the now restored 110 seconds of cuts made to the 1998 video release. The main title still contains 65 seconds of alternate footage to the cinema original for legal reasons. Also included are filmographies of Lunas and Oscar Ladoire, two trailers plus trailers for six other films.

This is the story of a woman through told pretty much through her sex life. As the film progresses we watch as her life goes from one of normalcy to one on the fringes of "normal" society, and its a course mirrored by her sex life. It is a very lurid film that pretty much covers every sexual subject you can think of, and probably some you can't. Its a well made movie that is so close to being an explicit film that one wonders why they didn't bother to go all the way and not shy away from showing it all. But its not really about the sex, since this is a smutty film that has the belief that its about something other than just showing hot sweaty sex. I'm not sure if thats true or not. Actually I'm not sure what I think of this film. frankly its one of those movies that you see and aren't enthused by, but which you find yourself haunted by none the less. There is something about the film that keeps me wondering if its not better than I think it is. Then again it maybe the desire to see the hot sweaty sex again (It really is steamy)If you're not prudish and ready to deal with sex in all of its varieties then by all means dive in and give it a try. If you are offended by anything other than straight forward heterosexual sex, then stay away.

It is difficult to know whether Bigas Luna is an unreconstructed celebrator of machismo, or a sly critic of it. In Jamon Jamon, the hero's tragedy is linked to his phallic power, but so is much of the film's energy and pleasure. In Golden Balls, the hero is plainly subject to critique, but the treatment of women is frequently exploitative.The Ages Of Lulu differs from these hits in having a woman as protagonist. One of the interests of the film is in the way the viewer is never sure what direction it is going to take. It begins with the lightest of touches, and ends in dark tragedy. On one level, it is a rite-of-passage story (the crucial early scenes are soundtracked to pastiche early rock'n'roll), as we follow the growth to maturity of a naive young girl, from the object of male fantasy, to a woman who recognises her own desire, and knows how to satisfy it; from someone who must tell stories to arouse her lovers, to someone who narrates her own self-defining story.Lulu's greater independence, however, is treated with solemnity and fear by the film, which is also a rigorous exploration of sexuality as site of character, identity, gender role-play, philosophy and politics (almost a comic Ai No Corrida, although this terror of female transgression recalls Lulu's famous namesakes in Wedekind, Pabst and Berg). However, the admirable realism and nervous pleasurability of the early sex scenes become dark, demonised and dangerous the more freedom Lulu gains. The final nightmare orgy brings Lulu to her senses, and back to her selfish wimpy man. Her consistently marginalised transvestite friend is sacrificed so that heterosexuality can reassert itself.The irony of this film is not as apparent as it is in Luna's more famous films, and Spanish audiences might be more alert to the contemporary resonances than I am. Phalluses abound in this still strongly patriarchal culture. There is none of the verve, colour and melodramatic swagger of Jamon Jamon in Luna's direction here, which is detached, yet prurient. The film shares many of the same features as an 80s Almodovar movie, but without the extravagant formal means of ironising the material. The story begins to get monotonous when the finger begins to wag. There isn't much opportunity for good acting: Neri is much better in Live Flesh, though she ages convincingly here.