Vivid (Luscious)

Vivid (1998) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

Scoop's notes

OK, I only watched this because it was a bad day for new releases. It was back in the day when retailers were still moving hesitantly into DVD, and the two biggest releases, Skulls and U-571, didn't even come out on DVD. The small new titles included nothing interesting, so I decided to return to the classics. Unfortunately, the Blockbuster clerk had a hearing problem, and when I said Kurosawa, he thought I said Kari Wuhrer. So here we have Vivid instead of Kagemusha.

This movie is so dull that, writing the review an hour after watching it, I couldn't even remember how it ended. I know that an artist has a mental block and can't create paintings or even get it up for his live-in ... until one day when he throws a tantrum and dumps a can of paint on his girlfriend/model. This turns them both on. They start rubbing paint all over each other, then they start making it like minxes. By sheer coincidence, this activity solves the artistic block at the same time, because they enjoy playing the beast with two backs while they are on his canvases, covered with paint. Bingo! The new Jackson Pollock is born.

This goes on for - well, for pretty much the entire Kama Sutra, and maybe a few of the sequels, like the Kama Longwithme and the Kama N'down.

His agent is thrilled at the new passion in his work, and his woman is thrilled by the new passion in his heart. Then some bad stuff happens, and then they work it out. Or something.

As erotic thrillers go, it gets no stars for the the "thrilling" aspect. Except for a very few lines, Shellen and Wuhrer have all the dialogue. The whole movie is basically just two people locked in one room (keeps the budget down), and frankly I couldn't keep my hands off the remote. In addition to the claustrophobic sets, their acting was inconsistent. Some scenes are quite natural and convincing, while others are blocked and acted with limited forethought.

On the other hand, the erotic part is good. Kari wanders around stark naked, both with and without paint jobs, and the scenes where they make love and mix the paint colors are genuinely erotic, and the whole process takes place in good light with clear photography.

Well ...

... at least I thought it was exciting the first few times they did it. I did get tired of it after a while, though, since they just kept repeating the same device with the same two people, albeit in different positions and with different colors of paint. If they had added some more people or some different gimmicks, it could have been hotter. Anyway, it is still pretty good erotica, and if you like to watch sexy movies with your wife or girlfriend, this one may turn you both on.

DVD info from Amazon

no widescreen
No features

NUDITY REPORT

Kari Wuhrer is stark naked for about a half hour of running time, both with and without paint. Steven Shellen is as well, but he's edited to avoid full frontal exposure.

Tuna's notes

Luscious is the famous softcore staring Kari Wuhrer as a struggling fashion model. Her boyfriend (Stephen Shellen) is an artist plagued with self-doubt and unable to paint. In a fit of rage at his creative and sexual impotence, he throws paint at Kari, who is modeling for him, and is both both artistically and sexually aroused by the look of the paint on her skin. They screw on a canvas, and end up creating a masterpiece. The new technique is the hit of the art world, but there are a few more things to overcome for the couple before their relationship becomes solid.

This film gets no respect at all among the viewing public, but it has some strong plusses. The first, of course, is a very naked Kari through much of the film. It is very well lit, and visually stimulating due to the use of paint. Some of the sex is hot and some of it is honest, such as when she agrees to try anal for arts sake, but doesn't like it. I can't help but think that this was partially a tongue-in-cheek jab aimed at modern art. Also, the music was varied, and far more interesting than the typical soft-core.

The Critics Vote ...

No major reviews online

The People Vote ...

IMDB summary: 3.7 out of 10. Yup, that's about where it belongs.

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

Our own guideline:

A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre.
B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. In order to rate at least a B-, a film should be both a critical and commercial success. Exceptions: (1) We will occasionally rate a film B- with good popular acceptance and bad reviews, if we believe the critics have severely underrated a film. (2) We may also assign a B- or better to a well-reviewed film which did not do well at the box office if we feel that the fault lay in the marketing of the film, and that the film might have been a hit if people had known about it. (Like, for example, The Waterdance.)
C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by people who enjoy this kind of movie. If this is your kind of movie, a C+ and an A are indistinguishable to you.
C means it is competent, but uninspired genre fare. People who like this kind of movie will think it satisfactory. Others probably will not.
C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie, but genre addicts find it watchable. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film, but films with this rating should be approached with caution by mainstream audiences, who may find them incompetent or repulsive or both. If this is NOT your kind of movie, a C- and an E are indistinguishable to you.
D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-. Films rated below C- generally have both bad reviews and poor popular acceptance.
E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre.
F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C+, as a soft-core nudie film - one of the best. Don't be fooled by that grade, however, into thinking it is a good movie in general. It is only worth watching if you want to see Kari Wuhrer naked and sexy.