Eating Raoul
Amazon.co.uk Review
You’d think a black comedy about murder, tackiness, and sexual perversion would quickly become dated, but Eating Raoul (1982) feels surprisingly fresh and delightful. When Mary Bland (Mary Woronov) gets assaulted by one of the repulsive swingers from the neighbouring apartment, her husband Paul (Paul Bartel) rescues her with a swift blow from a frying pan–only to discover a substantial wad of cash in the swinger’s wallet. A lure-and-kill scheme follows, which nicely fills their nest egg until a slippery thief named Raoul (Robert Beltran of Star Trek: Voyager, making his film debut) stumbles onto the truth and insists on getting a share. When Raoul starts demanding a share of Mary as well, Paul has to take drastic steps. The key to Eating Raoul isn’t the sensational content, but the blithe, matter-of-fact attitude Bartel and Woronov take to it; their sly underplaying makes the movie sparkle with wicked wit. –Bret Fetzer
A couple lacking money for the dream of their life. The husband who got kicked from the job for being too good a specialist. The wife who wasn’t able to get a loan because of her devotion to her husband. A frying pan as a murderous weapon and dirty swingers full of money as victims: a perfect solution for the problem. But here comes Raoul and… To tell anything else will be a spoiler for one of the funniest black comedies ever made. You will laugh when you see this movie for the first time, for the second and so on …
Rating: 5 / 5
Paul and Mary Bland are a quiet couple who stumble upon a plan to get rich quick: They place a dominatrix ad in the paper to lure rich perverts to their apartment and then bop them on the head – hard – and steal their money. A petty crook named Raoul discovers their scam and wants in: He’ll take the bodies, sell them to a dog food factory, and split the profit with them. Everything is going fine until Raoul decides he wants more than the bodies – he wants Mary.
This famous cult classic was made in 1982 on a shoestring budget; the sound is tinny, the sets are cheap, and all the actors, while experienced, act like amateurs. Director/Writer/Star Paul Bartel satirizes murder and sexual perversion and does it all with straight faces and matter-of-fact dialogue; Paul and Mary express neither shock nor shame at their new business venture. As the plot snowballs from the first accidental killing to 20 in one night, it gets wacky fast.
“Raoul” is not for everyone, but if you like over-the-top black comedy that goes way beyond the boundaries of good taste, you’ll enjoy it.
Rating: 4 / 5
Paul and Mary Bland have a dream of one day owning their own restraint. Due to a series of accidents it looks like they have found a way to make money from picking up and disposing of deviants. They turn to a professional to get the finer points of deviation. With a stoke of luck, they run across Raoul, who expands their potential by disposing of the ex-deviants cars. The addition of a hot tub accelerates their income potential. Raoul is getting kind of familiar with Mary.
Will they make enough money for the restaurant?
Will thy get caught?
What is to be done with the growing Raoul problem?
This movie will Dominatrix the industry. You will be wiped into shape and learn many things about which wine goes with which meat, and the best way to plan for the future. This should be taught in economics classes where it would be electrifying. Produced by people with fertile minds and a limited budget this movie pans out and is not anything but FUNNY.
Rating: 5 / 5
A straight laced couple, surrounded by debauched swingers, dream of opening a restaurant. After a number of setbacks, they hit on a sinister and amusing way of raising cash.
This is a very off the wall movie, and it’s well worth seeing.
Rating: 4 / 5
Having never seen this film before i was told of it by a friend. I found it very watchable and actually really funny. There are moments when i found myself laughing out loud. Its all rather silly with a far-fetched, slap-stick feel, but i enjoyed it and im sure many others will too. Even though the attitude of the film is fairly well dated.
Rating: 4 / 5