Let's be realistic.

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Brilliant and touching

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

I've watched this movie three times and find it to be a quite extraordinary; an homage, with a twist, to Beauty and the Beast perhaps? Whilst I can understand the distaste of some reviewers for the subject matter it was, for me, both very well executed and engrossing and I thought that both leading characters played their respective roles very well. Reviewing a movie such as this is complicated. The fact that it elicited such visceral reactions is, in my view, a tribute to its success in deeply involving the viewer in the story-line. How one reacts to that involvement is, of course, a purely personal response; but shouldn't the review of a movie reflect the extent to which it involves its audience, for better or for worse rather than the subject matter?

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.

Tattoo is very beautiful and stylish looking, as is Maud Adams. Below the cinematographic beauty is a core of exploitation.Maud Adams is not a great actress, but she and her breasts have wonderful personality which comes through on screen. Bruce Dern, a very good actor, lends gravity to his performance and does much more justice to the screenplay than it deserves.The story of Tattoo is pretty silly, the screenplay amateurish and many scenes are poorly executed. But despite it's many faults, I found Tattoo genuinely engrossing. The film is a visual delight and the music score meshes very nicely.Be warned that Tattoo is psychologically as well as physically exploitative so sensitives should steer clear, though really it's very mild compared with some more recent flicks.If you're a hetero guy, you'll love it. 6/10

I think people are too hard on this film. It's one of my favourites. Maud Adams turned out to be a wonderful actress (have you noticed people seem to be nasty about models turned actresses if they're any good?). As for Bruce Dern.... WOW! He's great too! It's much like "The Collector" in the sense that he kidnaps her out of obsession, perhaps convincing himself it's love- being a lonely character in it.Don't be mislead, it's a good film. It's not perverted in anyway. It's known by people who've read about it that he tattoos her (probably how it gets it's title!), true, but people forget that she is attracted to the idea, denying it to herself though, which provokes his attack- probably. Well, that's my opinion and Maud Adams is my favourite actress. In my 'crazy' mind she's the best actress to have come from the James Bond films ("The Man With The Golden Gun" and "Octopussy", as Andrea Anders and Octopussy respectively). Try to watch and don't be led into thinking it's a 'sleazy' film because it's not. It's a marvellous film!!