This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

I watched this both as part of my ongoing Luis Bunuel retrospective (it was written by his daughter-in-law Joyce) and in tribute (comprising what are possibly his two oddest films) to star Bruce Dern's recent – belated but well-deserved - induction into the "Hollywood Walk Of Fame".The film under review is a maligned one: often described as "sleazy melodrama", plotwise it is quite similar to the superior Oscar-nominated THE COLLECTOR (1965; a theatrical rendition of which, coincidentally, has just been staged locally) but, while kidnapping as an extension of butterfly-collecting makes sense, it doesn't follow naturally from tattoo-painting! Dern has often played wackos on the screen, but this rare leading role was certainly his most extreme example: he believes in what he does as if it were a religion and, after falling for model Maud Adams, tries to convert her to his way of thinking; his obsession with her leads him to ignore an attractive young employee of the modeling agency who, on the other hand, seems to be quietly infatuated with him.However, the protagonist's overt prudishness – which, frankly, is laughable – alienates the model soon enough (even putting down an annoying acquaintance of hers in a restaurant with the classic tough-guy retort, "When I don't like someone, I don't hurt them, I kill them!"); eventually, the artist decides to take matters into his own hands: retreating to his old beachside house with the (unwilling) girl in tow, whom Dern keeps sedated until he is able to complete his ultimate achievement in body-painting. As often happens with this type of film, the victim ends up succumbing to her captor's wiles – in a genuinely weird scene as the undulating bodies are completely covered in Japanese art – before regaining her senses and breaking free definitively from his hold.In conclusion, Bob Brooks' former career as a TV commercial director is evidenced by the plot's over-reliance on chintzy modeling sessions; it is ironic, then, that the film works best during its first half!

A film that relies solely on the crazed screen persona of Bruce Dern. Here Dern is a tattoo artist obsessed with model Maud Adams. He decides to kidnap her and "mark" her, thus making her his and available for sex. This is a lousy film with absolutely nothing going for it. Director Bob Brooks creates no suspense, no intrigue and no action. It's just dull. The screenplay is by Joyce Buñuel (daughter-in-law of Luis) and there's not a single trace of wit or creativity to be found. The conclusion is essentially told to you mid-way through the film. The acting is pretty bad. Dern is Dern (and appears a bit bored) and Adams, though stunning, is not an actress. She's brave to have appeared in this film and it's unfortunate that it's not a better movie. Brief appearances by the reliable Leonard Frey and John Getz add a little color, but not much.

I had high hopes "Tattoo" would be a minor gem. The ingredients were there - Bruce Dern doing what he does best: playing a psycho, the superb Leonard Frey has a minor role, a script is by a Bunuel and the plot concerns the rarely explored world of tattoos. Yet what we get is soft porn, bad acting and a ridiculously pretentious ending. Okay, so Dern is great as the masturbating, obsessive tattoo artist but the casting of Maud Adams as the object of his obsession is incredibly off. Looking like someone who just crawled out of an airbrush-laden mid-seventies Playboy issue, Adams is about as attractive as drying paint, but not quite as talented.The script is heavily misjudged also, constructed so we come to sympathize with Dern, yet halfway switches to having Adams the protagonist, which fails as attributed to her shallow and bitchy portrayal. And there is the film's major flaw, with no-one to sympathize with the film lacks the power and suspense it so desires. On the plus side it looks great, with wonderful cinematography which somehow even manages to evoke atmosphere from the proceedings on occasion. Also we get a cameo from a teenage Cynthia Nixon, Miranda from "Sex in the City", who impresses with what little screen time she has. "Tattoo" ends on a symbolic note which some may find profound, but most will see it for what it really is - turgid and pointless.Rent "Magic" or "The Collector" instead.One and a half out of four.

As a psychopathic tattoo artist, Bruce Dern has to work extra hard here, because the script is very sketchy as far as his motivations and background are concerned, but he is up to the task - he has some very creepy moments (like his first outburst at a dinner table). As his "object of desire", however, Maud Adams is fatally miscast: the way she plays the model in the first half of the movie, you just can't understand why anyone would become infatuated with her. This strange film might be worth a look if you can find it, but don't expect too much. (**)