sharky_55 The world of Eating Raoul is a depraved, prude's nightmare. Sex is on everyone's minds; you can't buy a carton of milk without contracting something, much less apply for a business loan (the manager's hand, after having his master's initial advances denied, seems to dive into muscle memory, groping the air and just about holding back from attacking the secretary). Director Paul Bartel, a Roger Corman alumni who made a string of low budget flicks in the 70s and 80s, utilises his set design well. It's kitsch overload, dirty white walls, mustard yellow carpet, pastel paintings that don't match - no wonder the inmates seem to be bouncing off the walls. Freak after freak is invited into Bland's household, with minimal decor and props hung up to cater to their sexual tastes. The mise-en-scene finds the right note inbetween seediness and tackiness. We grimace initially, and then can't help but chuckle at the cheapness of the whole charade, and the nonchalance of the Blands at these deviants invading their home: "He's not gonna show. We've thrown away 70 dollars on this light show." He does show a little later, muttering about Nam and hippy rebirths as if they were the natural progression of a middle aged man. Make love, not war. The Blands sleep in twin beds (have they ever had sex? Do they even hug?) and air kiss right before tucking in, although in this society they're relatively normal. They fall into their murderous routine by pure accident, as if it was an extended screwball bit. Mr Bland is the loser flogging vintage wines over the local bottle shop counter, and Mrs Bland is a nurse, although not the sexy kind, not that it deters his horndog patients. When they stumble into one frying pan murder, it cascades into another, and then another. Watch them act if they are good at this, or even enjoy it - they don't know how. It's cute to see Paul whisper to Mary to insult their client over the phone, and to watch them giggle like schoolchildren. They're too bland for this. Mary can't even summon the gall to spank a naughty client, even when he's overturned the entire tea table. She just scurries to clean the mess up. And look at what Paul wears to visit the sex shop, picking up a few odds and ends to attract more clients. It's a comedy of manners and learned behaviour, struggling to unravel after a decade of monotonous monogamy. That balance is upset when Raoul enters the business, a thief posing as a locksmith (it couldn't have been more obvious if he was a plummer - pick and choose your metaphors). A walking talking cliche, he embodies everything about those hot blooded Latinos that porn producers think ladies pine for. Here's where my suspension of disbelief fails a little; would Mary, the docile housewife, really go for this stud? It's all a bit suspect of a storytelling device designed to drive a wedge between the couple, who seem to be truly inseparable (shackled - no, handcuffed together). The script cheats a tad to get to that final gag, which is littered with delightful nods to everything the Blands have gone through. Eating Raoul indeed. It doesn't have the zany energy of a proper screwball, but Bartel finds something unique here, a sharp little black comedy about a sex-crazed world and the odd couple who wade through all the filth and persevere. They play it straight through and through - there's never even a hint of Cary Grant's manic stare from Arsenic and Old Lace to give it all away. It's a nicely seared veal, with just a touch of murder on the side.

Art Vandelay Maybe if I saw this at the Drive-In as the third movie of the night I'd be drunk enough or tired enough or happy I'd already seen a couple of movies for my $7.50 that I'd be pleasantly surprised by this atrocity. Might even be pleased to catch a glimpse of b00bie. But watching it on TV decades later I fail to see the appeal. I mean, this is about as funny as being put to the rack. Dark Comedy? Ever notice when fans and critics try to convince you it's a dark comedy there are zero laughs? Zero. Still, I give it 3 stars b/c it somehow has better production values than the usual drive-in schlock. And the aforementioned gratuitous b00bies. I sometimes wonder where IMDb digs up these glowing reviews of movies that are decades past being relevant or ground-breaking or shocking, because they certainly aren't any good judged on their own merits. Probably the same blogger goofballs who make a mockery of the Rotten Tomatoes site with their over-inflated ratings.

LeonLouisRicci Outrageous black comedy for those with an appetite for the unusual and the deranged cinema of the bizarre. It has the right tone of nonviolent violence and unsexy sex that produces a world of the completely corrupted, crazy atmosphere of satirical simplicity.Nothing is presented as anything but just the way it never could be. A made up fantasy film that is unique and refreshing in its audaciousness. Deadpan acting helps and you have to listen closely for some of the best lines. A number of punches come from under the breath and ride quick transitions. This is the hallmark of very talented work from a very good ensemble of players and movie makers.More fun and frolics than most of the major budgeted comedic SNL alumni ventures that have been churned out in the last thirty years. Because talent will out where pretenders and posers play.

funkyfry Paul and Mary Bland (Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov) do everything right. They're neat freaks, they collect good wines and serve the best food to their guests, and they sleep in individual beds just like the Nelsons on TV. Basically they're an "ideal" 1950s couple, transplanted into a cruddy apartment building full of swingers and drug addicts. Their only dream is to own a bed and breakfast in the country, and they invent a devious scheme to rob the swingers en masse. After all, why should they continue to suffer for playing by the rules, when everyone else is just so disgusting. Paul and Mary were meant for each other, and they are determined to live their dream.It's a very funny movie, and it has the consistency of style that marks Bartel as one of the most interesting directors working in "shlock." He doesn't condescend towards his own characters, and that makes the film hold up despite the weird situations that develop. And he's not afraid to make something tacky look tacky. But there's nothing "fake" about Paul and Mary Bland -- Paul truly is an expert on wine, and Mary's not a bad cook. They aren't delusional like a lot of characters in satire are.The actual scam seems to involve no risk. Nobody is able to withstand Paul and his deadly frying pan (shades of "Bucket of Blood" here -- this is almost a 1980s remake of that Corman classic). But Raoul (Robert Beltran) ignites the fire of sexual passion in Mary's bosom, and threatens the marriage albeit briefly. What I find interesting about the whole situation is that Raoul is totally convinced that Paul is a complete cuckold and that he's very naive. Meanwhile Paul institutes his own reign of terror on Raoul, convincing him that he has a VD, and Mary ultimately shows loyalty to her "perfect mate." So it's actually the ridiculously and almost stereotypically passionate "latin lover" Raoul who is the naive one. Paul and Mary Bland have a relationship that seems ridiculous and screams out to be made fun of, but it's the one thing that this film refuses to ridicule. And that's what holds the entire film together.