Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: Firstly, I have heard great things about this film, not least among the retro/vintage scene and the stockings lovers who absolutely love Bettie Page and it did not disappoint. Shot in very clean black and white with colour added for key scenes, the film gives a documentary feel to the early life and career of Bettie Page.

There are many things I did not know about Page. Firstly, there was the gang rape, later on, there is her early attempts at developing an acting career and then glamour pictures, firstly with a camera club peopled with men who can't get enough of her and later with the Klaws, Paula and Irving, who despite their taking of bondage and fetish photos, come across as extremely pleasant and friendly people. If only modern pornography producers were like that, perhaps better porn would be a consequence! For the most part, the film is neither a diatribe against the evils of pornography but an attempt to show the kind of environment that existed in the 1950s for those producing fetish and nude pictures of women. This environment was extremely repressive, perhaps in a good way because it meant that there was none of the 'saturation' effect that we have today, when it comes to pornography. It also appeared to be much less harsh. Page comes across as someone who enjoys her work and doesn't appear to be degraded by it. In many of her photos she is seen tied up and gagged (and trying to hold a conversation), brandishing a whip with a flourish, thus exciting the photographers taking her pictures and seen in 'initiation style' girlie bondage movies which look quite tame compared with the hardcore stuff we have now.

Page never became an actress and instead deserted pinup when she was in her thirties for 'Jesus Christ'. Her belief in God and Jesus never goes away, even when bound and gagged she still insists that she has been given a 'gift' by God to do 'this thing'. Seeing this film, I am more knowledgeable about Page and in awe at her modesty, beliefs and demeanour. She is one of a kind, compared with the identi-kit clone blondes we have today and someone who can actually say 'There is life after porn'.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, "Burning Moon". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, "Premutos" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially "Braindead". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in "Bad Taste", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it)

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic nothing really makes any sense.

Leo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Leo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.

Leo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.

Leo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Leo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Leo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Leo who left him, and that Leo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Leo says "But I love you" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here I guess "Every man for himself" is still the French way of doing things Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the "touchy-feely" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking "What's the matter, can't you sleep?", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Leo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.

The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Leo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer.