User Reviews

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!

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

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. (**)

My trusty Video Movie Guide 2001 dubbed this 'the most vile, reprehensible, sexist, and misogynistic piece of tripe ever released under the guise of a mainstream film.' Naturally, I went out and rented it right away. Frankly, I don't understand what the fuzz is all about. It's just another character study, albeit not a very good one: given their respective situation, both the kidnapper and his victim exhibit rather unbelievable behaviour. There are hints of both 'Psycho' and 'The Collector', but 'Tattoo' lacks the tension of the first and the insight in character of the latter. I understand the ending caused quite some commotion in it's time: I thought this was the strongest scene in the whole film. I won't give the ending away, let me just say the scene was at the same time erotic and disturbing

Tattoo artist kidnaps beautiful fashion model, applies his trade to her unmarked flesh. Seamy psychological drama with thriller aspirations that never quite come to the fore; director Bob Brooks, who also penned the original treatment, goes for a creepy, muted ambiance rather than an explosive one. Solid supporting cast including Leonard Frey, John Getz, Jane Hoffman and Cynthia Nixon more interesting than vapid leads Bruce Dern and Maud Adams, with Dern doing his usual self-imploding routine. Arty cinematography from two lens-men, Arthur J. Ornitz and Michael Serezin, attempts to turn the milieu into a smoky, seductive melodrama, but it's too sleazy for noir. *1/2 from ****

"Tattoo" drew my attention purely by chance. I was reading up on some movies with similar plot involving psychotic love and abduction, and "Tattoo" just happened to be among them. I didn't know what to expect, but I was willing to check it out. Kind of a nice surprise, really, this movie is no deep character study, it's not terrifying, nor violent or brutal, it's just pretty good. Bruce Dern is a very good choice when it comes to roles of deeply disturbed characters, and he can do a good job showing all the layers that mentally unstable can be coated with. The anger, sympathy, obsession and violence are all within him, and Maude Adams is just along for the ride.

Two of them are fully compatible on screen and the movie is done by the numbers, the plot steadily flows and the story unfolds to the end, which I didn't think was right, at first, I expected something else, but the mixture of emotions within Maude Adams, should have produced the combination of love and hate that ended the movie. Worth seeing.

Not a very good movie. The biggest plus for this movie is a lovely Maude Adams naked.

Unfortunately it's poorly directed and the storyline is just plain dumb.

I was surprised this flick ony had a handful of reviews. Guess it'snto shown on TV mch. Maybe with good reason.

It's rather dull, lifeless and boring most of the time.

Karl Kinsky is an army veteran who returns home, becoming a tattoo artist specializing in Eastern designs. He's a quiet and solemn individual, who had somewhat a bumpy upbringing with a father who looks down upon him and still does because of his profession. He is hired to create temporary tattoos for some models, but he slowly becomes obsessed with one of them Maddy. He begins a relationship with her, for it only to implode due his prudish believes and constant harassment. But he takes matters into his own hands when he kidnaps her and decides he wants to leave his mark on her.

"Tattoo" is a fascinating early eighties psychological slow-burner with an outstanding lead showing by Bruce Dern. It can be said, in his career Dern has been lumped in villainous / unlikable roles, but here it's a perfectly disturbed pitch of subtle and mannered shades. Across from him is the beautiful and headstrong Maud Adams, as the leering affection that Dern's character longs for. The script paints Kinksy as someone who knows what he wants, but wants it to be pure which leads to misconception and Dern's performance nails his character's insecure nature, as cracks start appearing showing an unsettling side. That being, the film progression is not unique, but quite routine and sombre. I think it works better in the opening stages setting up the characters, then so during the captive moments of the story. This is when it kind of stalls, but still visually it ends on an effective note. You'll know where it heads, but it's the acting, gritty urban locations (which also paint a desolate and lonely facade) and vivid tattoo artwork designs (and their meanings) on show that evaluate the formulaic plot. Bob Brooks' measured direction is efficient and busy, but its Dern's show. Also there's capable support by Rikke Borge, Leonard Frey and John Getz.

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!!

Greetings And Salutations, and welcome to my review of Tattoo; here's the breakdown of my ratings:

Story: 1.25 Direction: 1.25 Pace: 1.25 Acting: 1.25 Enjoyment: 1.00

TOTAL: 6.00 out of 10.00

Not being a great Bruce Dern fan, I hesitated in watching Tattoo. Being filmed in 1981, I was unsure how they could produce a decent horror film based on Tattoos. Well, they couldn't. It's a dark thriller about yet another "broken" man.

The writers give us the story of Karl Kinsky, a tattoo artist who fell in love with the Japanese style of body painting when he served in the navy. Not only does Karl promote the Japanese style, but he's also captivated by its history, myths and legends. His work is skilled and superbly detailed. Due to his talent, his work is brought to the attention of a magazine photographer. Kinsky's ink could be something special for his next feature. The job brings him in contact with Maddy. A model who could be his muse, who could be his next canvas. Her skin and body are perfect. Bob Brooks and Joyce Bunuel, the writers, give the audience a slow and plausible slide into obsession and mania. Kinsky is a loner and awkward with women. He's brusque, single-minded, and quick to anger. When he gets angry, it's easy to see Kinsky isn't a man to cross. There's a disturbing scene in a restaurant when a self-obsessed obnoxious blatherer invites himself to sit at their table because he knows Maddy. Kinsky doesn't like that he cusses around a lady and asks him to leave. When the man confronts him with, "What you gonna do, hit me?" Kinsky replies with a look that means business, "I don't hit people I don't like. I Kill Them!" And, you believe he would. One thing I found particularly engaging was his delusion that Maddy was a virtuous person. She isn't. She's not bad by any means, but she's not as righteous as Kinsky believes. The two are chalk and cheese. However, their differences make the story more credible and captivating. It would have been delightful had the writers added more detail about Kinsky's tattoo obsession and some of its background. It would have helped strengthen the viewers' belief in his methods and actions.

Brooks also directs, and, sadly, he has an average cinematographic style. Tattoo is a movie that could have been reinforced by some smart camera work - More intriguing close-ups of the body art. Slow pans across the inked flesh. And when Kinsky is working on Maddy, a couple of overhead shots wouldn't have gone amiss to add extra interest. That said, Brooks did give me a wonderful thought-provoking image of used paint swirling down a shower plug-hole. One hindrance to the filming is the slow pace. Brooks is apt to use it quite well to keep the atmosphere a tad off-kilter and keep your nerves slightly piqued. But when there's a dip in the story and direction, then the slowness becomes noticeable.

The cast is superb. I especially liked both the lead characters. Bruce Dern gives simmering menace to the camera excellently, and I have to say Kinsky is one of my favourite roles he's performed. I've only seen Maude Adams in secondary roles, such as being a Bond Girl or in cameos. I was surprised at how good she does here. There are a couple of moments when things slip a little, but you can accept these because, for the rest of the time, she's spot on with her character's personality.

If you're looking for an entertaining dark thriller to pass a Sunday afternoon or evening, then look no further than Tattoo. It's a delicious slice of the Psychopath Pie. Not every nutter dresses up as Mother or makes ashtrays from people's skulls. I may not be rewatching the movie anytime soon, though I may meander upon it again in a few years or so.

Now you have that full sleeve finished, come on over and look at my Killer Thriller Chillers list to see where I ranked Tattoo.

Take Care & Stay Well.

I love Bruce Dern! The guy has appeared in some of my all time favourite exploitation movies ('The Wild Angels', 'The Trip', 'Psych-Out', 'The Cycle Savages', 'Bloody Mama'), usually playing some kinda evil or deranged character. He does it so well that you can forgive many people thinking he must be a bad ass in real life, when apparently he's a straight living health freak who indulges in marathon running. Anyway, he makes 'Tattoo' into a fascinating viewing experience. It isn't the greatest movie ever made, in fact it's quite a mundane thriller for the most part, but Dern makes it compelling with an intense and yet subtle performance. He plays a very odd tattoo artist who becomes obsessed with Maddy, a bitchy model (Maud Adams, Bond girl and 'Rollerball'). Now Maud Adams isn't really my cup of tea but she sure looks good in the nude scenes, and anyway, this is Dern's movie all the way. Most people seem down on this one, but I can't see why. I will say that the bigger the Dern fan you are the more you will enjoy it. I enjoyed it a LOT!

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?

This story makes has me thinking what makes a man so twisted that he becomes deeply obsessed with the woman he loves the most. (Academy Award Nominee Bruce Dern) portrays Karl Kinski a tattoo artist who develops a twisted obsession for a model that he desires the most. Maud Adams (also known as one of the bond girls who was in both The Man with Golden Gun and Octopussy) portrays Maddy, the model that Karl desires the most. This has received a little bit of controversy surrounding the issue of the poster the shows a woman to her ankles. There was also another rumor if whether the sex scene between Maud Adams and Bruce Dern was either real or just an illusion. I don't know how to rate this film, but the point of this film was that it that there are crazed obsessives who lurk among us. To be honest this was a good film.

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.

It's movies like this that give tattoos and tattoo artists a bad name. I know a lot of people in the tattoo community and I don't know a single one who would tattoo someone against their will. Bruce Dern deserved the Razzi for this piece of poor filmmaking....