User reviews

Started out interesting enough, but then the movie completely devolved into nothing.

The entire Lucy Liu storyline was dumb. It was trying real hard to be Pulp Fiction (like a LOT of stuff around this time) but fails. If you stop to think about Pulp Fiction, every segment tied in together. This one started out with a simple storyline, simple plot, then tried to add other stuff, that doesn't have anything to do with the main plot (like the before mentioned Lucy Liu part). It goes off into its own story.

Still, not awful and it was enjoyable. Worth a rent, I am glad I didn't pay $9 to see it (was this even in the theatre?).

The late 90's brought several post Pulp Fiction wannabes (Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead, 2 Days in the Valley) in which unsavory characters cross paths and get tangled up in one another's schemes and some even occasionally find redemption. Aww... And this is another.

Craig Sheffer stands out as a merciless thug due for a comeuppance, who kidnaps a drug chemist (Lucy Liu) in the first of many messy criminal schemes which unravel due to bad luck, bad planning and mostly just bad timing. The bad timing bug hits a philandering spouse, whose punishment rapidly outstrips his crime, and then others who similarly come to grief in random and often comic ways.

The film is a very mixed bag of mostly unlikable characters and squirm- inducing scenes, but its sheer random unpredictability makes it at least somewhat watchable. Don't even try to guess where any of the plot lines are heading or what will happen next. Chances are you will be wrong.

Heed the advice of those comparing it poorly to Pulp Fiction. It is clearly trying very hard to imitate the the style of that movie, as many filmmakers were attempting at that time. It fails miserably at it. In fact, it fails miserably at even matching the low quality of "Two Days In The Valley", another piece of cinematic crap which failed miserably at attempting to imitate Pulp Fiction. (OTOH, "Two Days" is far more disappointing than "Flypaper" due to its stellar cast.) If you enjoy movies like Pulp Fiction, or Get Shorty, or Fargo, or Snatch, then see THOSE movies. This movie is a total waste of time. Plus, to add insult to injury, the multiple story lines have no payoff. They end in the middle of nowhere like unfinished highways miles before they reach a destination.

Okay, I'm pretty sure I am the only person in the entire world who liked that movie. And no, before you ask, I'm not a die-hard Lucy Liu fan. Admittedly, this movie was riddled with problems, but I think Quentin Tarantino said it best when he commented on Brian DePalma's "Bonfire of the Vanities" that it takes a director of quality to make a truly disastrous film. A hack wouldn't doesn't take the risks that failed to pay off in Flypaper. That being said, I have to wonder why a film like Flypaper falls so hard when films like "The Unbelievable Truth" launch a prolific career and a borderline cult following. Though the two films are as different as night and day, they both spring from the same impulse: stepping outside a genre and examining it outside the confines of illusionism. For all the griping that goes on about unoriginal, cookie-cutter genre pieces, shouldn't we have just a little generosity when a director has the guts to break the mold? Personally, I was hooked after the very first scene. Anyone can be outrageous. Anyone can be true-to-life. Combining the two takes brass balls, and Klaus Hoch has got him. For sure he's willing to throw a bucket of gratuitous sex and violence in our face, but, believe it or not, there is something rustling behind the curtains in Flypaper. No, we are not supposed to take anything anyone says in the film without a whopping grain of salt. That's part of the point. Every single character is a walking contradiction, a grotesque hybrid of celluloid and flesh. But -God help me, I know this is where I'll lose you- isn't that what it's always been about? We go to the movies. We rent DVDs. We sit back and watch human beings transformed (at best) into morons and (at worst) objects. It's a twisted zero-sum game, and it mirrors real life in ways we don't even want to think about. Flypaper is compared unfavorably with Pulp Fiction and various Cohen Brother films, perhaps because there is no warmth or adulation, no well-thought-out view from nowhere. Essence absolutely refuses to precede existence. These characters are going to do some very stupid, pointless things, and there is no redemption, no "correct" path for them to return to, not even a solid realization of their sad, silly condition.

the way this movie begins is very odd, but then again, so is the movie, but it's a GOOD odd. One of the catchiest lines in the movie was "when you F*ck a duck it's hard on the duck, so you have to break it's neck when you're done. you can't f*ck a duck and let it live" There was a good group of actors and actresses in this title, and I don't really recall it out in the theaters. I have been looking to pick this movie up at best buy, but it's not available there. Sadie Frost is totally hot in this movie, and her running around in panties and a tank top after a drug/alcohol induced stupor was pretty hot.

but the genius in this movie lies in the story itself.

Great story on several levels of ripoffs, backstabbing and deception. Perfectly acted parody of LA life, very funny and understated. Excellent performances especially from the 3 actresses - Lucy Alexis Liu, Talisa Sota, and Sadie Frost. Very much in the same vein as '2 Days in the Valley' (1996). Some strange sex scenes and the violence is almost comical. 3 separate but interconnected story lines occurring on a sunny LA day centered around 1 million dollars in cash, inspire the quirky characters to commit a litany of depraved and devious acts. Not a well known movie, but a little gem if you can track it down - well worth watching.

I saw this movie from flipping through channels. I had never heard of it, and I have asking people if they had heard of it and every single person hadn't. I liked it, but it was kind of pointless.

Flypaper is a rarely seen film by Klaus Hoch(who never made another film) which has a offbeat situation laden with quirky characters- which is what movies of this budget need to be. In the wake of Pulp Fiction you had a lot of films which played on the interconnected aspect of the narrative and Flypaper does just that. The characters are all out to harm someone or seek revenge and if you sit and enjoy the film for what it is this is a decent watch. It also contains a bizarre sex scene featuring Lucy Lui and a pit full of snakes(!!!!) so just for the audacity of this scene you should check Flypaper out.

The basic idea behind this film as that a whole lot of messed up things happen...some a bit pointless, some are really, really weird, and a few are amazingly funny.

if you're in the mood for a really messed up, yet really good movie, then this is your choice for the night.

for the low brow crowd...lucy lui is naked in this

seriously though, this movie was quite good. kind of sad klaus koch hasn't made another movie since.

To be fair, no matter how bad a movie this is, it has a graphic sex scene with Lucy Liu. So it can't be all bad.

This movie consists of a bunch of quirky characters doing incredibly quirky (and violent) things and mouthing absolutely unbelievably quirky dialogue. I'd imagine that how it came to be was that the folks who created it saw films such as those of the Coen brothers and Quentin Tarantino and basically completely missed everything that was going on other than the superficialities, i.e. the quirkiness and the violence... so they said to themselves "Hey, we can make a movie like that... just take a whole mess of quirkiness and some violence, throw it all in a box, and shake!" And that's just what they did... with Fly Paper being the result. It's sort of what you'd get if you took Fargo and Pulp Fiction, removed all the intelligence and humanity, amplified the quirkiness by a couple of hundred percent, and then threw the mixture into a blender set on 'Purée'. Only recommended to those with a high tolerance for and liking of quirkiness and violence, and no requirement that a film should contain anything else. Technically the film is thoroughly professional on all levels... it's a pity the content is o limited (perhaps it's meant to be a parody... but then shouldn't it be funny or something?)

While this film is far from great it's a lot better than 90 percent of the pap wanna-be producers are pimping to get the "Pulp Fiction" market (i.e. ANY of the dozen or so films Michael Madsen's made in the last few years). My one major criticism with it was the casting of an Irish actor who needed about 10 more years of acting lessons and dialogue coaching. It really does take more than a handsome face to pull of a major role even in a small film like this. The scenes this guy were in were frustratingly bad and it hurt the film immensely. The only other criticism I had was with Lucy Liu's cheesy generic Asian accent. Her meth lab chemist-in-bondage part didn't require her to be a real immigrant(she would've been better with her natural patois),although I have to say she looked sooooooo good in that little camo tank top and short shorts that I didn't mind it that much. The rest of the cast do a decent job with their characters and there are some funny moments throughout.

Well I didn't see the entire movie, but there is a sex scene where they are laying on a blanket on the ground covered in rattle snakes. Further more it seems to make the sex better after every 'bite.'

Wild movie

I had never heard of this movie until I saw it mentioned online somewhere that Lucy Liu had done a nude sex scene in it. I, of course, rented the film and watched it. The movie isn't very good, honestly. As for Lucy, she's naked all right, and in a short sex scene, but the shots of her body are very brief and you have to use the pause button on your remote if you want to catch any of it. The sex scene itself is NOT graphic, as one user commented, it's very very tame. Lucy and the guy...I don't know his name...they have sex in a pit of snakes. You get brief glimpses of Lucy's breast(s) and a shot of her butt, but I have a sneaking suspicion that was a body double since we never see her face in the shot. Well, if you're like me, and you watched this movie to see Lucy Liu's nude beauty, you'll only be happy if you don't expect much. She is beautiful but the nudity is short and tame. If you watched this movie for the movie itself, then you probably wasted an hour and a half.

The movie itself is pretty wacky but very entertaining. You just have to ride with it and see how it goes. They just keep beating on the characters until they have nothing left to give. Its hilarious in a strange way but very slapstick towards the end. I enjoyed it!

Lucy Lui sex scene of course, very nice, although she is one of the all time worst performers I have seen in the last decade she has a nice body.

No one has commented on Sadie Frost! This girl puts out an aura of sexuality that is hard to match. Everything from her smallest movements to the sex scene is pretty incredible. She has the ability to switch between succubus and demon in seconds. Gorgeous!

This movie was very very excellence! The key while watching this movie: YOU CAN'T TAKE ANY OF IT SERIOUSLY! Sit back, relax, and enjoy the vulgar language and violence, its great. The end scene in the movie was masterful, not wanting to give any away, but you have to see it! Craig Shaffer was excellent as a demented drug "businessman" on the brink of loosening all mental normalcy. I'd like to see increased amount of movies like this, harnessing the twisted semi-complex plot of a true treasure. On a 1 to 10 scale this movie gets a solid 8.5....................