Kissing on the Mouth (2005) User Reviews

Case in Point.

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 5 November 2012]

You can only do so much with little or no budget. This movie does what it must, I guess, following two or three, very ordinary young folks around, listening to their Hopes And Dreams, capturing plenty of their nudity, doing for their sex lives what Margaret Mead did for the Samoans', listening to them ramble on.

It's in some ways a novel venture. I'd always wondered how women shaved their pubic hair. Now I know, but I still don't know WHY they do it. I can understand a man's trimming his mustache. If you let it go, after a while you can't eat donuts anymore.

I also know something about male masturbation in the shower. I read it about it somewhere, once. But it does absolutely nothing for me to watch a close up of some guy whacking off amid the soap suds.

But then the entire movie, aside from being -- perhaps necessarily -- a little dull in conception, is maddening in execution. Or, let me put it this way: whatever happened to the medium shot? It's a brave movie but not an especially interesting one. If it's a movie, it ought to have a coherent plot somewhere. If we want a slice of humdrum life we can always find somebody tape of the old PBS program, "Family." Somebody compared this to "Brown Bunny," but that's an inept comparison. This one lacks the raw sex and the arrant male narcissism of "Brown Bunny." This one could have been much better if there had been some effort put into the writing, assuming any effort at all was put into it. You can do stuff successfully without having ten million bucks. Has anyone seen "The Little Fugitive"?

unique, but is that the same as excellent?

[Quinoa1984 · 5/10 · 1 May 2016]

I'll be frank: remember I sought this out because it was a) Joe Swanberg's first movie, and b) it seemed like it was, in part, a soft-core porno. No, it's not that. It has practically hardcore scenes with the director himself. Unfortunately I remember some of those scenes more than the scenes of drama, which involve the revolving lives of college aged people in love (and some of this looks like people in dorms).

It's so naturalistic that it is trying for something different entirely, almost breaking the mold of both pornography films (the usual rough quality is at least given here a more direct shot-list, I think, than what is usually done by directors), and not unlike the other (must quote) "mumblecore" movies there is no firm script so the dialog and talk between actors and what is kind of breaking the fourth wall about relationships is extreme and intimate and extremely intimate all at once.

When I mean extreme is that we get intimate with these actors to where that line is blurred between what is perhaps, arguably, exploiting the young actors who agreed to be in this (female and male, I mean this involves the cutting of public hair on camera), on top of the emotional extremes displayed. What this all amounts to is... maybe not a whole lot. But I was mesmerized watching this - it doesn't function as a typical porno despite the rampant nudity, and it doesn't function as your typical three-act structure dramatic narrative.

It's experimental and in your face and primal and even philosophical and it doesn't give a good damn what you think of it. That's refreshing for a first movie. I just wish I could muster enough energy to watch it again.

All String, No Knot

[tedg · 18 October 2007]

I spend a lot of time with the films of young filmmakers. Sometimes I'm completely blown away, because of all the ordinary values and risk that youth carries. A life with film needs this, it really does.

But its an investment that along the way brings a whole lot of disappointment. This is one such.

You may take my view with qualification because one value I hold dear is the "long form," the ability to not just present a world but have something happens therein that matters. It isn't enough to merely display, you have to engage, transform, penetrate.

These kids have some promising intuitions about this: there are within the story two guys: one is a photographer and the other apparently a sound editor. Also, the film alternates between interviews — ostensibly for the sound guy's project — and an ordinary watching of a certain young woman. We learn a few things about her, and along the way see a couple things not often seen in films. So there is structural folding in the thing.

And the performances are natural. But that's not saying much because these characters are only half-people. We learn through DVD extras that this is who they actually are. There's some sex and nudity here. Commentors note that this also is natural. It didn't seem so to me, instead as artificially posed as usual. Yes, I presume that sex we see is "real," at least once. And the camera seems to be casual and lingers on odd trash as much as on bodies, something that mirrors the offhand Gen Y sense of awareness.

But there's nothing done with this at all. One wonders why it was made at all, other than the four involved were bored.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

A bad, bad movie

[stobin31 · 1/10 · 27 March 2007]

What a time we live in when someone like this Joe Swan-whatever the hell is considered a good filmmaker...or even a filmmaker at all! Where are the new crop of filmmakers with brains AND talent??? We need them bad, and to hell with mumblecore!

This movie is about nothing, just as the characters in the film stand for nothing. It's this horrible, so-called Gen Y, that is full of bored idiots, some of which declare themselves filmmakers with out bothering to learn anything about the craft before shooting. Well, Orson Welles was a filmmaker. John Huston was a filmmaker. Fellini was a filmmaker. Dreyer was a filmmaker, etc. Current films like these show just how stupid young, so-called "filmmakers" can be when they believe going out with no script, no direction, no thought, no legit "camerawork" (everything shot horribly on DV), no craft of editing, no nothing, stands for "rebellious" or "advanced" film-making. Nope, it's called ignorance and laziness or just pure masturbation of cinema (and there actually is an in-your-face "jack-off shot," so be ready).

Look at the early films of any accomplished "indie" filmmaker: Linklatter, Morris, Allen, Lynch, Hartley, Jarmusch, Jost, Lee, or Herzog...none made anything as tedious and aimless as this, yet Swan-whatever the hell, is still going to SXSW every year and hailed as some kind of gutsy, new talent. It's crap! I can't imagine anyone liking this, and everything else this so-called filmmaker has done (all seen by me) is just as bad (the newer stuff clearly made to appeal to a more mainstream audience, one of the sitcom calling). Steer clear, unless you're a friend or family member of those involved...on second thought, if you're a family member or friend you'd probably be embarrassed to see a family member or friend in such compromising situations...

Utter garbage. This isn't art. This is the ultimate opposite of it.

Even calling this a film, is an INSULT to bad films

[bertseymour7 · 1/10 · 27 July 2007]

This film was absolutely awful, I even feel uncomfortable calling it a film. Its the typical "mumblecore" movie, with zero plot and a bunch of aimless whiny twenty somethings stumbling around trying to "figure stuff out". I have tried to give mumblecore a chance, but lets be honest its just horrible.

I am not out of sync with cinema, I appreciate Dogme95 films, Idioterne is one of my all time favorite films. So I do not mind if a film is cheaply made so long as there is some (ANY) substance.

Everything in this film is horrid, the acting, the writing (or was it all improvised?), the direction, but MOST of all, above everything else, the camera work was just plain and simple nonsense. The camera was never anywhere logical, there was no consistency. I got to admit being a guy I had heard there was nudity in this film so I thought to myself well even if its horrible at least there's nudity (yea I know, I'm a jerk). Well thanks to the uber crappy camera-work you never really get to see anything, and the things you do see, TRUST ME - YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE. This film made me want to vomit on numerous levels.

The dialogue made me want to vomit, the camera-work made me want to vomit, but mostly the idea that this film was praised by some legit critics, well now that more than anything makes me want to vomit.

Kiss Off

[thesar-2 · 2/10 · 9 May 2009]

I admire 'Kissing on the Mouth' for its frankness – pubic hair cutting and masturbation, especially from the lead/director Joe Swanberg. They weren't afraid to show trueness to everyday "private" occurrences. Unfortunately, the film falls under the 'The Brown Bunny' realm, though with a slightly more developed plot of jealousy. Yes, it mirrors 'Bunny' with a whole lot of nothing going on, or too many cinematography shots focused (or sincerely unfocused) on absolutely nothing – feet, hands or genitals. Again, unfortunately, I can see why this film was released, and why people are renting: true life sex scenes and full frontal (equally, both male and female) nudity. Other than that, it was a complete waste of time. We quickly learn of a post-college male/female roommate pair in which the male has obvious feelings for the female that sees him as just a friend while continuously having sex with her ex-boyfriend. Other than that, we are subjected to the every-day events of their boring lives: she works for her parents; he works on an extremely uninteresting sexual awareness project on his computer. For this all to work, the dialogue has to be interesting and the acting real. Neither work and it's as boring as watching someone drive for an hour, i.e. 'The Brown Bunny.' The only actor that stands out is Kate Winterich, and even she does some questionable acting. (The DVD extra with her in front of a mike is actually worth watching/listening to.) Again, I admire the filmmakers, especially Swanberg, for baring it all and not being afraid to expose themselves or shower-habits, but overall the film falls flat. It has narrations that doesn't fit the scenes, too many boring everyday events and unconvincing acting that you wonder, other than the soft-porn factor, why you rented this.

a surprisingly good little indie

[hunterwhales83 · 7/10 · 12 December 2007]

I expected to hate this movie. I had a friend who saw it, who had told me about it and mentioned there was ridiculous amount of nudity that seemed uncalled for and that the plot didn't really go anywhere. I've heard quite a bit about the mumblecore group of filmmakers with much criticism, and was still excited to see this movie and most likely tell everyone how much I hated it.

Hated it I did not. Quite impressed, was what I found myself to be. To start off with first, there is a ridiculous amount of nudity in this movie. However, I didn't find it to be uncalled for at all. I felt that the director was showing us sex as it is. So often we see glamorized images of sex in Hollywood movies and it is so far from what sex really is. In this movie we see it plain and simply as what it is: two people having sex on a bed, a guy masturbating in the shower (which I could have done without but I feel it was done with purpose), or a girl putting deodorant on her crotch. I found all the nudity to be less tittalating than a typical Hollywood movie. When we watch Hollywood flicks the intention is usually to tittalate, this is to show people really having sex (and I honestly think they were) without all the gloss and glamour.

And yes the movie is about sex, dealing with sex with an ex post relationship and how people feel about sex in general which we hear in the voice over questions that Swanberg records. From as far as I can tell these interviews seem very genuine and were unscripted, much like most of the movie. These are real people talking about both life and sex. This movie reminds me of Greg Araki's first film Totally f--ked up. Whereas that film was more of an examination of homosexuality, this is an examination of heterosexuality, and in my opinion Swanberg's film is much better (However, Araki's film was speaking to a different generation and I'm sure this will feel the same way years down the line).

As for the plot, I wouldn't say it's the most original idea I've seen. It's basically about a girl who is still sleeping with her ex, and her friend who has a crush on her. Does it go somewhere, yes. At the end the two both move on and the friend seems to make peace with our protagonist (I also loved the little touch of the money in the envelope. Perfect). It's a simple plot, but the way it is executed is done very well and feels very real. I applaud Swanberg for this first attempt and look forward to seeing the work he will produce in the future. I have yet to say LOL and Hannah, but will be soon. Anyone interested in checking out the latest on the indiest of indie check out this piece with an open mind and you may be surprised at what you will find.

An OK idea with the poorest execution!

[imalamin · 1/10 · 7 February 2009]

OK, I kinda like the idea of this movie. I'm in the age demographic, and I kinda identify with some of the stories. Even the sometimes tacky and meaningless dialogue seems semi-realistic, and in a different movie would have been forgivable.

I'm trying as hard as possible not to trash this movie like the others did, but it's not that easy when the filmmakers weren't trying at all.

The editing in this movie is terrible! Possibly the worst editing I've ever seen in a movie! There are things that you don't have to go to film school to learn, leaning good editing is not one of them, but identifying a bad one is.

Also, the shot... Oh my God the shots, just awful! I can't even go into the details, but we sometimes just see random things popping up, and that, in conjunction with the editing will give you the most painful film viewing experience.

This movie being made on low or no budget with 4 cast and crew is not an excuse also. I've seen short films on youtube with a lot more artistic integrity! Joe, Greta, I don't know what the heck you were thinking, but this movie is nothing but a masturbation of both your egos. You should be ashamed of yourselves! In conclusion, this movie is like what a really lazy amateur porn movie will be if it was filled with 3 or 4 lousy sex scenes separated by long boring conversations and one disgusting masturbation scene. If that's not your kind of thing, avoid this at all cost!

By 24-year-olds, for 24-year-olds

[ems97 · 10/10 · 6 April 2012]

As someone who is currently 24, I found this film to be very meaningful. The situation of the characters, without direction in life, taking delight in small things like an apartment with cool wall colors, resonates with me. They are interested in having relationships, but seem lost.

The script includes many humorous moments, and feels very realistic given my experience. The characters are reflective, and sometimes even insightful. There are also segments with a voice-over of other people my age reflecting on their experiences.

The acting is hyper-realistic, with people rubbing their noses while talking to friends, and just acting like normal people instead of Hollywood super humans. While some of the situations may be stereotypical (taking laundry home to a parent's house), the script and the acting makes these moments fascinating.

I would recommend this movie for any young adults interested in thinking deeply about their own lives. Perhaps you will find that the characters are feeling their way through the same situations as you.

I like, you like, they like, we all like the word "like".

[fedor8 · 14 March 2008]

"It's like hard to like describe just how like exciting it is like to make a relationship like drama like with all the like pornographic scenes thrown like in for like good measure like, and to stir up like contro- like -versy and make us more like money and like stuff." - Ellen, the lost quote.

"Kissing, Like, On the, Like, Mouth And Stuff" is like the best like artistic endeavor like ever made. Watching like Ellen's hairy arms and like Chris masturbating was like the height of my years-long movie-viewing experience and stuff. But before I like begin like breaking new U.S.-20-something-airhead records with the my "likes", let me like just briefly list like the high- like -lights of this visual like feast:

1. Chris doing the deed with his genitals. And not just that: the way the camera (guided so elegantly by Ellen and Patrick) rewards the viewer with a full-screen shot of Chris's fat white-trash stomach after he finishes the un-Catholic deed - that was truly thrilling. I can in all honesty say that I've never seen such grace. Chris, you should do more such scenes in your next movies, because that is exactly what we needed as a continuation of what that brilliant, brilliant man, Lars von Trier and his "Idiots 95", started. A quick w*** and then a hairy, fat, white belly: what more can any movie-goer ask for?! Needless to say, I can sit all day and watch Chris ejaculate (in spite of the fact that I'm straight)... Such poetry in motion. Such elegance, such style. No less than total, divine inspiration went into filming that sequence - plus a solid amount of Zen philosophy. Even Barbra Streisand could not get any more spiritual than this.

2. Ellen's hairy, thick arms. The wobbly-camera close-ups, so skillfully photographed by our two directors of photography (I can't emphasize this enough), Ellen and Patrick, often caused confusion regarding the proper identification of the sex in question. There were several scenes when we would see a part of a body (a leg, arm or foot), yet it was often a guessing game: does that body-part belong to a man or a woman? Naturally, Chris and his fellow artists, Ellen, Patrick and whatsername, cast themselves on purpose, because their bodies were ideal for creating this gender-based confusion. It was at times hard to guess whether one is seeing a female or male leg. Patrick is so very thin and effeminate in his movements, so hairless and pristine, whereas Ellen and the other girl are so very butch, what with their thick legs and arms. Brilliant.

3. Brilliant - especially the way that neatly ties in with the theme of role reversal between the sexes: so utterly original and mind-blowing. Ellen behaves like a man, wants sex all the time, while her ex Patrick wants to talk - like a girl. Spiffing.

4. Ellen's search for a Leftist mate. "He must love 'The Simpsons', which is quite Leftist." I am glad that the makers of this movie decided to break the long tradition of offering us intelligent Leftists. Ellen is such a refreshing - and realistic - change. The number of "likes" that she and her liberal friends manage to utter in less than 80 minutes is truly phenomenal (3,849, to be exact). They have managed to realistically transfer their real-life ineptness onto the big screen with a minimum of effort, and I applaud them for that.

5. The close-ups of toes. Plenty of stuff here for foot-fetishists, which I think is a very liberal, highly commendable way of reaching out to sexual minorities. After all, shoe- and foot- fetishists are offered so little in modern cinema, so it's nice to see that someone out there CARES.

KOTM, or rather, KLOTLMAS, offers more than meets the eye. It is not just a modest little film about shallow people engaging in hollow relationships while indulging in meaningless conversations. No, it's much more than that. It's about the light that guides all silly creatures; the guiding light that dominates the futile lives of various pseudo-artistic wannabes who just dropped out of film school, and plan to assault our senses with dim-witted drivel that will hopefully play well at pretentious festivals like Sundance and Cannes, enabling them to gain the necessary exposure hence some real cash for a change, with which they will later hire the likes of Sean Penn and George Clooney in promoting the saving of this planet and the resolving of ALL political problems this world faces. What better way to do that than by making porn at the very start?

If Chris and Ellen did the camera here, as is clearly stated in the end-credits, then who held the camera while the two of them were in front of it? They probably hired some passers-by and shoved the camera into their hands...

An excellent film

[edsel1057 · 8/10 · 3 October 2006]

I wasn't familiar with the filmmaker's work, and I wasn't expecting much when I rented this from Netflix. A real life movie mixed with documentary style interviews didn't sound like a great idea, but I read some good reviews and decided to give it a try. The characters and situations were so natural, it's hard to believe everything portrayed here was from a script. Even the sex scenes were so unsensational, it made them seem totally realistic, I wouldn't be surprised if the actors were lovers in real life. This movie is exactly why I love indie films. Shot on absolutely no budget, this is one of the best movies I've seen this year. This movie kept me riveted to the screen for an hour and 48 minutes, and left me wanting more when it ended. And the ending.. wow what a burn.

I don't care what "they" say, this film is great!

[jennmccall · 8/10 · 29 September 2007]

I think that often people who write these comments have never attempted to make anything more than a video of their kid's birthday parties or their cat playing with a koosh. It's not as easy as it looks. Just look at You Tube and you will find plenty of people who don't know the first thing about making a film let alone making something worth watching. Joe Swanberg is not one of them. He is a talented filmmaker with a knack for telling a story in a new and innovative way, and his work so far proves his abilities. Joe's films and web show are some of the most well made, inventive, do it yourself film-making to come along in years. If you don't get it, do yourself a favor and take a course in film history. Film-making is more than just creating something that appeals to a broad audience, or even a small one. It's about making art and telling your story. And if this is Joe's story, then props to him for getting it out there for others to enjoy. If you like Altman, then go watch Altman and stop complaining. Let the rest of us enjoy the good stuff out there... ALL of it.

The uncommon debut

[StevePulaski · 8/10 · 22 January 2014]

Joe Swanberg was bold to make Kissing on the Mouth his directorial debut. Everything about it is a risk, and in 2005, do-it- yourself filmmaking had not gained the incredible momentum it has in recent time. This is the kind of film you make your fifth or sixth film, after you've established a name for yourself and your work and have created your own style of filmmaking.

This is an uncommonly ambitious directorial debut from a man I admire quite heavily and have made an effort to pay attention to for the last couple of years. Since Kissing on the Mouth, Swanberg has predicated his film career off of making extremely low- budget films that often explore the themes of sexual exploration, technology, communication, the filmmaking process, and post-college life and his entry into the film world is one that steadily prepared us for what was to come. Ever since Swanberg entered film, he has been met with a sizable fire-storm of criticism for his low-budget style, which is often billed as mumblecore, a subgenre of film that is heavily defined by character, cheap production values, and excessive amounts of naturalistic dialog.

The film follows Ellen (Kate Winterich), a twentysomething who has just had sex with an ex-boyfriend while currently seeing Patrick (Joe Swanberg), a fellow twentysomething currently invested in a personal project he's constructing that includes commentary on modern relationships and personal feelings on love. Patrick is the jealous type, while Ellen is the type of girl who possesses an "I don't care, you shouldn't care" attitude when it comes to issues in her life, and when the possibility of her cheating comes into question by Patrick, she increasingly becomes more closeted and alienating in her attempt to try to piece together what she wants without her entire love-life crumbling.

A large part of this already short film (seventy-eight minutes) is sex, and by a large part, I mean roughly forty percent. However, the sex here is unconventional. It has an unpolished, imperfection to the way it is filmed, with Swanberg using extreme closeups on pubic hair, nipples, and unclear parts of the body. This style provoked intrigue as well as frustration for me because while I get a subversively shot sex scene I am also greeted with a shot that doesn't have accurate placement nor clear distinction of what exactly is occurring. Some will undoubtedly find this annoying and irritating, and, for that, it's almost too easy to dismiss everything the film has housed in it.

Admittedly, Swanberg relies too heavily on these sex scenes, which scarcely come off as erotic more-so than as an anarchic attempt at creating style. Where Swanberg shines is in filming heavily-improvised dialog between the cast members, which is always a great time in my book. Because of the naturalism and inherent authenticity to the material based on its lack of gloss and polish, the actors could very well be expressing their own opinions to us and with that we naturally take away what we want from their monologues and discard whatever we don't want.

While forty percent of the picture is made up of extended sex scenes shot with varying uses of the closeup camera shot, the remaining sixty is dialog or music montage. Obviously, the dialog takes prominence here because then we really can get a sense of what these characters are about and what their opinions on love are. The film's most revealing attribute is Patrick's audio montage of several different unseen people weighing in on subjects from marriage to hookups to relationships. This provides for a pleasantly relativistic look on other people's opinions of popular subjects. If sex/ relationships were political topics, Kissing on the Mouth would be the ultimate debate film.

Just a few days ago I viewed Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless for the first time, a film that fundamentally and aesthetically changed the ideas of cinema by shamelessly bending the rules and toying with conventions that were long carried out by new as well as veteran directors. When Godard's directorial debut hit the scene in 1960, a breakthrough movement in cinema history was born. To compare Swanberg's Kissing on the Mouth to Godard's Breathless, to some, would seem like comparing trash and art but if one looks at how they fearlessly shatter all preconceived judgments and convention, one could view them as birds of a feather. It just so happens that one feather went on to leave an irrevocable watermark while the other left something of a lesser marking. For one of the pioneering films of the mumblecore subgenre in cinema - a subgenre I adore and simply can't get enough of - it's still quite fascinating and, at times, moving in its insights.

Starring: Kate Winterich and Joe Swanberg. Directed by: Joe Swanberg.

Like, like, like...

[franciscoder · 19 February 2016]

No, I don't like it.

The summary makes reference to the main character's (Ellen) insertion of the word "like" in just about every sentence! It's a common,annoying California verbal tic that once you hear it, you can't stop hearing it! And she's got it bad! "So he's, like, "I don't know," and I'm, like, "Why not?" so they like, got up and left, and we, like, got up and left, too..." Pretty much every time she speaks..

No one involved with the movie noticed this? Totally unwatchable! Also, what's with the guy jerking off in the shower? What was the reason to subject us to that? My guess is the guy was horny and, this being such an amateur attempt at movie making, said, "Let's use it - it's edgy!"