Peter Shelley | Sydney, New South Wales Australia | 07/28/2000
(5 out of 5 stars)
"The cover, the nudity, the use of the "f" word, and the R rating may make you think this is an exploitation movie but actually director and co-writer Caryn Krooth's psychological drama is full of surprises. It begins with Meg Harris (Carla Gugino) claiming to have been raped by two women. Rape is apparently legally defined as a male crime only so, in order that the assailants are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, Meg must have them charged with sodomy which is defined in terms of subjugation and force. The rape is shown in flashbacks but Krooth suggests rather than makes the acts explicit. This strategy probably goes one better than the scene in The Accused since here, in spite of featuring 3 naked females, the sex is de-eroticised and marginalised. The narrative follows the course of the investigation leading to the trial, which Krooth cleverly skips, and the plot develops in more and more interesting and unexpected ways. The subject is probably handled so well because the writers and director are female, and the strength of the film is the acting of the women. There are good performances from Aida Turturro as a policewoman, Catherine Dent as the prosecuting attortney, Lorraine Toussaint as the defendants attorney and Ellen Greene in a cameo. The actors playing the rapists aren't given much depth though and oddly, Krooth's male characters are all weak. Meg has additional problems so Gugino's twitches become repetitive and even the one good time she is given is marred by her wearing a disfiguring black lipstick. Could Krooth be saying that shade is fortuitous? Don't ask me what the title is supposed to mean though."
Not as good as I expected...
FloozyFlapper1926 | 04/03/2000
(3 out of 5 stars)
"I mean, look at the cover on the box! This one looks like an erotic thriller, right? Even the slogan, "not every sexual predator is a man" sounds to be like what SHOULD have been a very erotic video of a gorgeous babe being trapped by a couple of other hot women who use & abuse her, right? I was thinking "WOO-HOO! "... but, the actual experience didn't live up to expectations. This one was more like a crime drama with very little erotic video. The girl-girl action actually shown was very brief and not even very hot. If it was advertised as such I doubt I'd have even bothered to rent it. As is, I'm both sadder & wiser..."
A very surprising and interesting movie!
FloozyFlapper1926 | Somewhere in the 20's | 02/23/2001
(5 out of 5 stars)
"I bought this movie on dvd because I was able to get a discount on it. It seemed to have an interesting premise so I watched it with an open mind and began to find myself drawn into the story. First of all, its a different story than I've ever seen in a movie. The subject of women raping each other is something that most films don't touch on. I found it to be an interesting portrayal of something that actually could happen and probably does more than anyone will ever know. Its not a big-budget film but Carla Gugino was very good in the movie. The two women were both wild, crazy and sinister characters that made the movie interesting to watch. It unfolds rather slowly but I found it to be good enough to watch more than once. I liked the way it made you think about a subject that no one talks about.If you are looking for erotica, you won't find that much in this movie but if you are looking for interesting film noir, this is a good one to watch. My only complaint was that the DVD quality wasn't all that good but the film itself was quite entertaining!"
See along with The Accused
CEM | Wilmington, NC United States | 03/03/2003
(3 out of 5 stars)
"I own this movie and am never disappointed by repeated viewings. It is is not, however, a film for everyone. It is stark and ugly in the vein of The Accused in its depiction of a twist on a rape trial. There is very poor character development here, but of course how much can you manage in 2 hours? There was much attention paid to the development of one of the rapist (the actress's name escapes my memory but she also appears in the fabulous "The Intern"), but the other rapist is left as just a nasty bully motivated by, um, nastiness? I love the performance of the main character and her reaction to the rape. However, there are flashbacks that elude to a past that is horrifying but none of that is fully developed and thus only distracts from the true plot line.... same for her relationship with the vaguely introduced best friend/potential lover/mainstream drop out??? Who is this guy anyway??? Again there is a lot of extraneous material here, but the basic story will draw you in and is highly entertaining. I like this movie despite how my review might read. I think the concept is good if not well developed and there are a couple great performances (the main character and the defense lawyer and investigator, along with the bar owner). I may have an attration to this film because of the fact I am a lawyer and the interesting twist the way the local law is written affects the plot, but I think a layman can appreciate this fact as much as I can. I sincerely hope this is *not* based on a true story and if it is,I hope the laws have been re-written to clearly reflect the dilemna faced by both the detective and the victim here (Note: the detective is Tony Soprano's sister in a bit over the top, but nonetheless effective role). It is well worth a watch if nothing else, but if you are a fan of indie character films as I am, this is one for your collection."
"....This movie never decided whether it wanted to be a police procedural, a psychological/character study, or an indictment of the legal system. Instead it covered all bases. Poorly. The police were incompetant. The lead detective investigating the rape has sufficient evidence to arrest the two suspects. A competant detective would have gotten the arrest warrants, arrested both suspects when they didn't talk, and never given them a chance to talk to each other. Alex would have crumbled in 5 minutes of interrogation, and the movie would have been over. Instead, our detective goes to see Pat, but doesn't bother to ask the name of the other woman present. Turns out it's Alex, the other suspect. The detective asks Pat about the incident, then leaves, having given both perps a heads up and plenty of time to start getting their stories straight and destroy the evidence. The characters are unbelievable. We either don't know why they act the way they do, or are given an unbelievable explanation. For example, the victim has a "secret" she goes to great lengths to hide, but it's something she did when she was 7 or 8. It didn't seem like much of a secret to me. We are never given any information about why she feels the need to hide, just told the secret and expected to agree that the victim should be hiding it. Second example: the defense lawyer acts as if this "secret" will let her get her clients off. To reach this conclusion, the lawyer has to disregard the overwhelming physical evidence and assume that the jury will have the collective IQ of a turnip. Finally, the acting is simply not very good. To be fair, a great deal of this is due to the script with which the actors were afflicted. However, it seemed that the 'sleepy seaside town' setting infected the actors or director. There was no tension, no energy, no suspense. The whole movie is flat and dream-like. If you're thinking of buying Jaded, be sure to rent it first so you know what you're getting."