Kissing on the Mouth (2005) from Tuna

Kissing on the Mouth is an unrated micro-budget film created by four young adults in their early 20s to present an honest and accurate picture of love and sex in the new millennium for recent college graduates.

The story:

Kate used to date Kevin in college, but they broke up over cheating. She now lives with Joe, but has started fucking Kevin again. She doesn't want a deep relationship with anyone, as she explains to her best friend Kris. She just wants to get laid. Kevin wants a real relationship now, and Joe is the jealous type. None of the four have settled into careers as yet.

The four creators, Kate Winterich, Joe Swanberg, Kevin Pittman and Kris Williams, not only played the four major roles using their own names, but did 100% of the crew work as well. Their editing is decent, as is the sound, but the photography is not at all good. They shot it on digital video, and from the look of it they did not use a high-end camera. Much of it is blown out, and there are way too many extreme close-ups. Also, the camera isn't steady much of the time, and the images are often unfocused.

Based on the IMDb scores, I guess it wouldn't be much of a date movie, even though women shared equally in its creation. Men rate it a solid 7.0 at IMDb, but women score it a bottom-dwelling 3.4. I suppose that may be related to the fact that the sexual content is far more explicit than most mainstream or even indie films, although it never seems prurient. Kate Winterich shows everything, and is naked for a good deal of the film. At one point Kate trims, then shaves her public hair on camera in close-up. One of the guys jacks off in the shower, complete with money shot. It doesn't get much more honest than that.

I don't have anything in common with these people, so was not especially involved with their lives, but the extreme nudity and sex was enough to keep me awake.


<<<<<<<<<<< DVD INFO



see the main commentary

The Critics Vote ...

  • No graded reviews on file. Variety did write a VERY brief review, which can be found at IMDb

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

Our own guideline:

  • A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre.
  • B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. In order to rate at least a B-, a film should be both a critical and commercial success. Exceptions: (1) We will occasionally rate a film B- with good popular acceptance and bad reviews, if we believe the critics have severely underrated a film. (2) We may also assign a B- or better to a well-reviewed film which did not do well at the box office if we feel that the fault lay in the marketing of the film, and that the film might have been a hit if people had known about it. (Like, for example, The Waterdance.)
  • C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by people who enjoy this kind of movie. If this is your kind of movie, a C+ and an A are indistinguishable to you.
  • C means it is competent, but uninspired genre fare. People who like this kind of movie will think it satisfactory. Others probably will not.
  • C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie, but genre addicts find it watchable. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film, but films with this rating should be approached with caution by mainstream audiences, who may find them incompetent or repulsive or both. If this is NOT your kind of movie, a C- and an E are indistinguishable to you.
  • D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-. Films rated below C- generally have both bad reviews and poor popular acceptance.
  • E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre.
  • F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this is a hard one to grade. They managed to book four festival showings, and now have DVD distribution, which is not bad for a first effort at all. Even Variety gave it a thumbs up for midnight festival viewing. I guess I'll call it a C+, a success of some kind for the total lack of budget, although I can't figure out what the genre is.

Return to the Movie House home page