Cashback (2004)
3/10
Art or soft porn?
21 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
To begin with this short movie looked promising. The first shot is of the Sainsburys ceiling and the next of a rather gormless worker on a scooter. The best shot is of a bag of frozen peas spilled on the floor which is actually the most artistic bit in the film. He then talks about his love of the female form while looking up several young females skirts. So far okay. The next shot is of his childhood and of his life changing after seeing a naked Swedish exchange student walking up the stairs. We get a close up view of her hairless genitals. Attractive. The rest of the film is made up of 'artistic' shots of attractive slim under 30s women. Actually no, of attractive thin under 30s breasts, behind and shaven crotch. Agreed there is artistic beauty in a attractive slim womans body, but what about her face, hair, eyes? What about larger women, what about older women what about the diversity of women? What about men? He mentions the uniqueness of their beauty, but all I was seeing was the same body type over and over. Thankfully there were no fake breasts as far as i could tell. What a poor excuse for art. If you are a straight guy or a lesbian this is your wet dream but for me being a straight women i found it degrading and pathetic except for the few moments of actual thoughtful art. They could have done so much more with the story they had. Instead they made it into a adolescent fantasy. Well done. How original. I hope the movie they made of it will have more substance.
4 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed