Labyrinth of Passion (1982)

Sick Product of a Sick System

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

A camp melodrama/comedy about Sexilia (a nymphomaniac), Sadec (a gay Islamic terrorist), Riza Niro (the son of the emperor of Tiran), and Queti (the daughter of a dry-cleaner). When Riza Niro discovers that Sadec and his colleagues are after him, he disguises himself as a punk rocker, and falls in love with the stunning Sexilia, his first straight relationship.This film is rarely seen in American because, so far as I know, it has never been released on DVD here. That is somewhat surprising given the major name Almodovar has become. And to have Antonio Banderas as a gay terrorist is something that is so out of character with how we might think of him today (2017).By American standards, the film may be considered soft-core pornography. There is a fair amount of nudity, with men and women... and men on men. No doubt this was risqué in its day, and some might still consider it so. Whether Americans are prudes or Europeans are perverts, I do not know.

In his two first movies (and I would count the third one too -Entre Tinieblas-) Almodóvar was more a kind of outsider, someone who needed to express himself freely in a country that had suffered a Dictatorship for almost 40 years. Neither "Pepi, Luci..." nor "Laberinto de pasiones" tell any story in particular, at least none that's interesting. They're rather a collection of gags and sketches that are meant to scandalize and to drive up the wall all that right-winged people. Almodovar uses topics such as incest, gay power, Islamic terrorism, drugs abuse... 100% punk attitude, basically. And though Spain is much more liberal nowadays some of the passages of Almodovar's first movies couldn't be accepted by the society. How come? Well, because of the "political correction" stuff (isn't it some kind of censorship too?? I mean, self-censorship).Anyway, this movies have to be understood in the right context (just like John Water's first films). If you don't take that into account you'd better go and watch any other thing.5.5/10

Very typical Almodóvar of the time and, in its own way, no less funny than many of his later works. And why is that? There is nothing to be provoked or shocked about, and I guess any such effect is more coincidental than intentional. No, the great humor stems from an underlying, almost surreal, absurdity that is woven into the scenery: The characters' nearly complete lack of taboo. It's the same kind of 'comic suspense' you find in his later works, though you'll find it in a more rough version here. He's building up for masterpieces to come, but is not yet there.The sole reviewer who commented on this movie before I did, claimed that it had to be a "very select" group of people who'd find this movie hilarious. I do.

I happened upon a rare copy of this early Almodovar film with high expectations - Almodovar is a prolific contemporary director, I enjoyed his 1988 film "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown", and I had read one or two very positive reviews of the film. Well, I must have missed completely the humor that the reviewers saw in this film. I just found it incoherent, tasteless, and boring. Yes, there are plenty of innuendos, people in drag, and crude sexual situations, and yes, these elements may have shocked audiences in 1982 (which was almost certainly Almodovar's intention), but much of the shock value has probably eroded over the years, leaving a limp storyline. Beyond that, the whole movie seemed very chaotic, none of the characters were particularly sympathetic, and for a "comedy" - even a dark one - I just didn't find this film funny. I suppose it is possible there is a VERY select audience for a film like this, but I'm just not part of that audience, and not sure that I want to be.