Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

SnoopyStyle Charles Bremer likes classical music, flowers, and art. He's a lonely church organist and hires nude model Lisa for private sessions. Her boyfriend David is an angry, struggling artist. Charles writes letters to his mother and takes art classes. He is outwardly wealthy with family money but it may not be what it seems.Bremer is like a trust fund baby without purpose. Norman Kaye creates a private but personable character. It's a compelling emotionally-damaged role. Alyson Best is memorable especially her opening scene. She's a Manic Pixie Dream Girl with real damage from her ugly boyfriend. The plot is a little thin. It's really a great sad character study of these two people. It's a little slow at times but it's a great art-house Aussie indie.

disinterested_spectator When he was a little boy, Charles saw his mother naked, and he has been obsessed with his mother and naked women ever since. He pays a psychiatrist to listen to him talk about his mother, and he pays a woman named Lisa to take off her clothes the way his mother did, giving Paul Cox, the director, an excuse to film some full frontal nudity. In between, Charles writes letters to his dead mother, addressed to himself, and goes around looking for statues of naked women to feel up.But I guess that was not enough for Cox, so he gave Lisa a girlfriend, who is a lesbian, and they have sex together, and we get to watch. But Charles wants to watch too, so he pays them for the privilege. And that was not enough for Cox, so when Charles goes to look at David's art, we get to see David with a naked woman. And then when Charles kills David so he can have Lisa for himself (just to watch, not to touch), he has a sculptor disguise David's corpse as a statue. A naked statue, of course.Now, lest we get the idea that Charles is a pervert (or that Cox is a pervert for wanting to make a movie like this), we have Lisa's assurance that Charles is a kind, sensitive, sweet man. And then Cox wraps the whole seedy tale up in a lot of art: we have the organ that Charles plays for the church, we have operatic music unrelentingly going on in the background, we have sculpture and paintings, we have arrangements of flowers, and we have an art class, where a woman poses nude.In other words, Cox really put some lipstick on this pig.

Pascal Zinken (LazySod) Charles Bremer, an elderly man, is a little eccentric. His love for flowers is only equaled by his love for watching a pretty woman undress. He lives on his own, plays the organ in church and tends to stick to himself. Things don't go really fast for him, until the drug addicted boyfriend of the girl he pays to strip for him turns violent.Nudity, classical music, long slow scenes with a lot of colors, emotional darkness. That'd be the general description of the film in a few words. It'd be a great injustice to this little film though. The story is played out amazingly well, with a very acceptable explanation of the Man of Flowers, and why he is who he is and all.The choice of musical overdub in this film, sometimes blotting out everything that is happening completely, reminded me a bit of A Clockwork Orange, although that film is almost entirely unlike this one. It works out very well though, pushing the accentuation in just the right direction when that is needed. Clearly a well done case of film-making.8 out of 10 flowers in the air

karhukissa In my language, there's a different word for erotic and non-erotic love. English has just one word for the two. And Charles, the main character in this story, doesn't even make a distinction. The attraction he feels to flowers or classical music is erotic, as is his attachment to his mother; at the same time, he's unable to consummate a sexual relationship. He's a profoundly lonely person, who writes letters to himself and buys 'human relationships' in the form of a doctor or a stripper to whom he hardly talks. Lisa, in turn, is just as lonely: her boyfriend hardly talks to her, only takes her money to spend on drugs. This film is about the isolation of modern people, the impossibility to create relationships. Charles sublimates this longing into a fondness for all art and beauty, others escape into drugs or pointless 'creation'. And the question arises: why am I watching this film? What am I substituting with it?