This film really opened my eyes as to what, Jean-Marc's dreams are. I wish that JM would make his film's available in the US. Too Much Flesh, is a wonder film that is very hard to understand.It took me watching it a few times to get what JM's concept was, in this film. If you can get past all the sex, and masturbation. You will see a deeper meaning in this film. All the pain and, the longing for love. I found that JM is truly one of the most convincing actors I have ever seen. He has convinced me!
9 Reviews
Cornfield of the vanities
tomsview18 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Years ago when I first saw this French production I felt it had a European sensibility transplanted to the American Mid-West.
Others have pointed out how it hardly captures any real vibe for rural Illinois. That aside, the story seems to have come first and then a location found. It could almost have taken place in some closed off 16th Century village, but the film seems influenced by other factors. In the over-heated plot, can one detect an in-joke?
The director, French/American Jean-Marc Barr, also plays Lyle who lives with his devout wife Amy (Rosanna Arquette). We learn she lost the love her life years before, and the only way she can stay faithful to his memory is through grief; her new husband is denied his conjugal rights. She is also fearful of the abnormal dimensions of Lyle's member, which gives the movie its title.
Vernon (Ian Vogt), an old childhood friend, returns to town with a French mistress, Juliette (Elodie Bouchez). Lyle knows that Vernon is deeply closeted and solves both Juliette's and his frustrations by heading off to the cornfield together. From then on clothes are shed frequently. Lyle also encourages Juliette to fulfil a young friend's wish to lose his virginity. When the openness of these relationships becomes known, the townspeople turn nasty; some large-girthed boys come a-hunting in their pickups.
Barr was a member of the Dogme 95 filmmaking movement started by Lars von Trier, which aimed to bypass the big budgets and control of the major film companies.
However the films had to be made to a strict set of rules. The film had to take place in the present. Shooting must be done on location with the required props to be found there. The camera should be hand-held with no special lighting.
There was also a rule that the film must not contain superficial action such as murders, weapons, etc. (which may explain why the boys at the end of Barr's movie don't reach for the gun-racks).
There were others, perhaps missing was one that stated the film should also be entertaining.
Barr didn't follow the manifesto to the letter, but its spirit was there. Maybe it was his peers he was out to impress, and they may have been amused at him playing the guy with "Too Much Flesh".
Others have pointed out how it hardly captures any real vibe for rural Illinois. That aside, the story seems to have come first and then a location found. It could almost have taken place in some closed off 16th Century village, but the film seems influenced by other factors. In the over-heated plot, can one detect an in-joke?
The director, French/American Jean-Marc Barr, also plays Lyle who lives with his devout wife Amy (Rosanna Arquette). We learn she lost the love her life years before, and the only way she can stay faithful to his memory is through grief; her new husband is denied his conjugal rights. She is also fearful of the abnormal dimensions of Lyle's member, which gives the movie its title.
Vernon (Ian Vogt), an old childhood friend, returns to town with a French mistress, Juliette (Elodie Bouchez). Lyle knows that Vernon is deeply closeted and solves both Juliette's and his frustrations by heading off to the cornfield together. From then on clothes are shed frequently. Lyle also encourages Juliette to fulfil a young friend's wish to lose his virginity. When the openness of these relationships becomes known, the townspeople turn nasty; some large-girthed boys come a-hunting in their pickups.
Barr was a member of the Dogme 95 filmmaking movement started by Lars von Trier, which aimed to bypass the big budgets and control of the major film companies.
However the films had to be made to a strict set of rules. The film had to take place in the present. Shooting must be done on location with the required props to be found there. The camera should be hand-held with no special lighting.
There was also a rule that the film must not contain superficial action such as murders, weapons, etc. (which may explain why the boys at the end of Barr's movie don't reach for the gun-racks).
There were others, perhaps missing was one that stated the film should also be entertaining.
Barr didn't follow the manifesto to the letter, but its spirit was there. Maybe it was his peers he was out to impress, and they may have been amused at him playing the guy with "Too Much Flesh".
Good plot.... terrible direction... terrible acting. bad ending too.
afterdarkpak25 July 2020
The plot is somehow really exciting.. the environment is also ok. low budget production quality is also doesnt matter..
But the only thing matters is super bad direction n very awkward acting. it seems like they are rehearsing and they keep shooting it and made a movie. and soo many scenes with awkward silence. its like they are waiting for someone to do the lines.
Anyhow , its kinda good plot.. a man married to woman who had previous husband died in accident and she never got over with it . and even she promised herself or to GOD that she will keep continue to love her ex and no sex to current husband.. Soo many movies MISUSING religion.. its like clear propaganda by evil Hollywood or atheists to show the bad thing about religion. its in relgion. (every major) its a very most duty to fulfil the desire(sexual) of spouse whenever there is in need. and its a great sin if ones decline.
so furthermore, the husband want some action when his friend came alone with open minded french girl friend. and there he n she start some fun.
----------------spoilers-----------------
Ending of the movie is also very disappointing .. even if it comes to tragedy. if there would be a blood for adulterers. then there should be death of both husband lovers. but ,, that poor guy got smashed ONLY.
But the only thing matters is super bad direction n very awkward acting. it seems like they are rehearsing and they keep shooting it and made a movie. and soo many scenes with awkward silence. its like they are waiting for someone to do the lines.
Anyhow , its kinda good plot.. a man married to woman who had previous husband died in accident and she never got over with it . and even she promised herself or to GOD that she will keep continue to love her ex and no sex to current husband.. Soo many movies MISUSING religion.. its like clear propaganda by evil Hollywood or atheists to show the bad thing about religion. its in relgion. (every major) its a very most duty to fulfil the desire(sexual) of spouse whenever there is in need. and its a great sin if ones decline.
so furthermore, the husband want some action when his friend came alone with open minded french girl friend. and there he n she start some fun.
----------------spoilers-----------------
Ending of the movie is also very disappointing .. even if it comes to tragedy. if there would be a blood for adulterers. then there should be death of both husband lovers. but ,, that poor guy got smashed ONLY.
Flipside of Chocolat
isadorasdiary28 April 2001
Although this film may have been a (somewhat) unrealistic handling of the sort of back woods US towns I grew up in, Too Much Flesh likely did much more justice to the US than, say, Chocolat did to France. At least the French makers did the movie, set in Illinois, in English. Both films look into the provincialist persecution of freer sexuality and mores, but, with regard to the nature of sexual experience, at least, Too Much Flesh was a bit more realistic. It's not realistic just in that the "sex scenes" showed (almost) everything, but that real thought went into the directing of them. I noticed that the audience, like myself, was involved with these scenes just like any other acting in the movie - not seeing them just as an added entertainment perk, but as an important part of the subject matter. Overall, the main character, Lyle, the one with too much flesh, was a very inspired character, as was his actor, Jean-Marc Barr. The wife played by Rosanna Arquette embodied a very tortured and, I think, very possible psyche. Sure, there are weaknesses in the film. It might have been better if there were no "message" in the end, but leaving out the ending, the movie's progression was refreshing, with many interesting and original plot developments and a good number of laughs, too.
Too Much Celluloid
caryllpearlman17 February 2001
Yes, this was pure unbelievable condescending babble. We know that the French often have a skewed idea of the USA, it's puritanism and views towards sex. As an American (Hoosier) who lives in France, I have ample opportunity to observe these attitudes. And while some of these preconceived notions may be true, NOT ONE ELEMENT of the midwestern town portrayed in this film rang real. A man who has never had sex because he was told in high school 20 years prior that his penis is too big? Where in the world would you find that? A juke box in a bar that plays only vintage bluegrass? A town with maybe 16 people less than two hours away from Chicago, but with no major gas station, no Tvs in the home, no McDonalds, no kids... A population that knows each other's intimate details yet relentlessly gets together like one big family that hates each other. The adult males plant whoopee cushions at the local cafe, have farms but don't harvest, kill the guy they don't like in front of everyone and seem to get away with it, and all with equal emotion? The liberated French girl who will screw the 17 year old virgin boy because of her sexual generosity, the too much flesh guy who goes from getting off in cornfields by the mere breath of an Illinois breeze to helping deflower this same 17 year old farm boy? HELP! I am so baffled and astounded by the absurdity of this film that I am not expressing clearly how ridiculous it is. Go see it for the A-to-Z primer on what to avoid. Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin it for you!
Disappointing attempt at complex issue
Rainsford56 March 2005
Opening shots of main character, Lyle, masturbating and fantasizing in a cornfield, releasing his pent up frustrations in the only way he knows how, is well balanced with the most jarring opening music I have ever encountered. The score, partly written by the real-life former wife of Jean-Marc Barr, Irina Decermic, lends the overall theme of the film its disturbing nature and is in retrospect well balanced with the storyline. Dealing with small town attitudes, hypocrisy and puritanical American values, Barr attempts to deal with a fairly contentious issue here that sadly fails with the poor acting and the stilted dialog, but is to be commended for the attempt.
PLOT: Supposedly, Lyle has been married to Amy for five years but the marriage was never consummated due to the town gossip having told everyone years previously that Lyle's penis was extremely large and out-of-proportion (thus "Too Much Flesh"). Amy, the wife, never having recovered from her long lost love that had died tragically years prior to the arranged marriage, finds the situation satisfactory. Furthermore, she intends to conceive a child with artificial insemination. However, when Lyle's childhood friend and author visits for the first time in many years and brings along his very liberal and sexy french girlfriend, all hell breaks loose within the small community when Lyle discovers his own late sexual awakening in her arms. Not only this, but he brings into the equation a young man to share the ménage-a-troix. Containing some very erotic images that this film has no compunction in showing. I am not a big fan of blatant sex in films, finding a loss of subtlety a sorry affair, but I will add these scenes are truly erotic.
I had to watch this film three times to understand what it was the film was trying to say, however I don't think that that was the films fault, rather my own disappointment in the story's delivery took precedence. Where the second installment in Barr's Free-trilogy (the others being "Lovers" and "Being Light") is a brave attempt at a complex issue, it fails to deliver. I was expecting a higher standard of writing, acting and production values, given Barr's extensive filmic background. Arquette and Bouchez give disappointingly lame performances and the supporting cast is below average to say the least.
The script is lame to be honest; for example when Lyle confronts Connie the towns' gossip, he uses language that someone born and raised in middle America would probably never have heard of unless he subscribes to Playboy or watches the adult channel. And again with Amy's addressing of her husband and his childhood friend, speaks as though she is a 90 year old Quaker grandmother, not a sexy attractive but emotionally confused housewife. Predictable, incoherent at times, about ten minutes too long and amateur, the partnership hopefully will team Barr and Arnold again to produce/direct together, but it's my absolute hope that this attempt will be the least successful in a series of much better films. On the positive side, I have followed Jean-Marc Barr's career with great interest and will continue to do so. He has the medium of film in his heart and is true to his art with a great talent to back it up with. No matter my disappointment this time, it's always a pleasure to hear of a new Jean-Marc Barr project in the works.
PLOT: Supposedly, Lyle has been married to Amy for five years but the marriage was never consummated due to the town gossip having told everyone years previously that Lyle's penis was extremely large and out-of-proportion (thus "Too Much Flesh"). Amy, the wife, never having recovered from her long lost love that had died tragically years prior to the arranged marriage, finds the situation satisfactory. Furthermore, she intends to conceive a child with artificial insemination. However, when Lyle's childhood friend and author visits for the first time in many years and brings along his very liberal and sexy french girlfriend, all hell breaks loose within the small community when Lyle discovers his own late sexual awakening in her arms. Not only this, but he brings into the equation a young man to share the ménage-a-troix. Containing some very erotic images that this film has no compunction in showing. I am not a big fan of blatant sex in films, finding a loss of subtlety a sorry affair, but I will add these scenes are truly erotic.
I had to watch this film three times to understand what it was the film was trying to say, however I don't think that that was the films fault, rather my own disappointment in the story's delivery took precedence. Where the second installment in Barr's Free-trilogy (the others being "Lovers" and "Being Light") is a brave attempt at a complex issue, it fails to deliver. I was expecting a higher standard of writing, acting and production values, given Barr's extensive filmic background. Arquette and Bouchez give disappointingly lame performances and the supporting cast is below average to say the least.
The script is lame to be honest; for example when Lyle confronts Connie the towns' gossip, he uses language that someone born and raised in middle America would probably never have heard of unless he subscribes to Playboy or watches the adult channel. And again with Amy's addressing of her husband and his childhood friend, speaks as though she is a 90 year old Quaker grandmother, not a sexy attractive but emotionally confused housewife. Predictable, incoherent at times, about ten minutes too long and amateur, the partnership hopefully will team Barr and Arnold again to produce/direct together, but it's my absolute hope that this attempt will be the least successful in a series of much better films. On the positive side, I have followed Jean-Marc Barr's career with great interest and will continue to do so. He has the medium of film in his heart and is true to his art with a great talent to back it up with. No matter my disappointment this time, it's always a pleasure to hear of a new Jean-Marc Barr project in the works.
Like Watching a Snake....
dzwilson24 November 2005
Kind of drawn in by the erotic scenes, only to realize this was one of the most amateurish and unbelievable bits of film I've ever seen. Sort of like a high school film project. What was Rosanna Arquette thinking?? And what was with all those stock characters in that bizarre supposed Midwest town? Pretty hard to get involved with this one. No lessons to be learned from it, no brilliant insights, just stilted and quite ridiculous (but lots of skin, if that intrigues you) videotaped nonsense....What was with the bisexual relationship, out of nowhere, after all the heterosexual encounters. And what was with that absurd dance, with everybody playing their stereotyped roles? Give this one a pass, it's like a million other miles of bad, wasted film, money that could have been spent on starving children or Aids in Africa.....
Too less of a story - (and film ?)
Wilhelm-J2 May 2001
Despite my opinion that J.M. Barr and Elodie Bouchez are great actors, them two just having an awful lot of true erotic scenes doesn't give this rather thin developed and predictable story much more essence. Just like in *Intimacy* I don't agree with the necessity of all that.
It must have been much fun to film it, but from the movie I get the impression that the story or the film itself was not the actor's or team's primal focus during the shoot. Or probably not even during the writing?
It must have been much fun to film it, but from the movie I get the impression that the story or the film itself was not the actor's or team's primal focus during the shoot. Or probably not even during the writing?
an honest opinion.
sentmepacking12 May 2004
i'm sorry, but this film was the worst possible waste of time i've ever had the unfortunate experience of viewing. an hour and a half of my life i will never get back. my boyfriend and i watch many movies, and being in paris, it's easy to see just about anything you'd want on the big screen. well, this time, we decided to settle in for a film. what a mistake. i'm from the midwest, and the only good thing about the movie were the shots of the land. otherwise, this movie should never have been made. they must have used actual people from rankin to act in this movie...there's no possible way a professional could act that terribly. the whole premise is so backwards and backwoods for that matter. i don't know..maybe there's something wrong with me. but i know i can (and do) appreciate good filmmaking and this just didn't do it for me. don't bother with it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
