Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

rzajac Have fond memories of seeing this as an opener for a mid-career Fellini flick. Everyone in the audience was spellbound. The imagery challenges you to metabolize it, somehow, and surely some of it stubbornly refuses to give up any secrets.Was enormously impressed with the scene in the theater. It's a thought- provoking representation of a relationship between an idealized artist and an idealized audience.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) "Asparagus" is an American short film from 1979. The writer and director here is Suzan Pitt and it is certainly still her most known work. The movie runs for 20 minutes approximately and takes us on a journey with a woman who decides to go out and spend an evening at a theater and other locations. But before she goes, she bakes sure the bowels are empty and we graphically see that, only that what comes out of her butt is not the usual, but it's lots of asparagus. That's why the title, I guess. And this motive is repeated on some other occasions. Near the end, for example, she sucks on an asparagus as if it was male genitalia. That should already tell you the tone of this film. Yes it is animated, but it is certainly not a good watch for very young audiences. Then again, it is probably also not a good watch for grown-up audiences. I myself liked very little in here. The animation was fine, but in terms of story, it felt really empty, just going for cheap thrills, but not a convincing or interesting plot. Thumbs down from me and, judging from this one, I am not surprised Pitt did not make it bigger in the decades since this came out.

MartinHafer I am giving ASPARAGUS a 5 simply because it has lovely quality animation. This animated film appears as if they merged the Art Deco and 1970s Pop Art movements to make a truly unique looking film. Also, the color palate is interesting--as the film seems to use a lot of reds, oranges and pinks--all helping to create an interesting style. However, as for the film itself, I just don't get it. Now I understand that the plot is supposed to be surreal and bizarre, but it just seemed, at times, like veggie porn. And, if I want to see something sexy, it won't be in the form of vegetables! Such "sexy"(?) imagery is a closeup of a woman pooping out asparagus as well as scenes of a hand or a mouth performing sex acts with this same vegetable--and I doubt if I'll be able to look at this particular veggie the same way again. Along with this, there is tons of other phallic imagery.Overall, while I understand what the animator was trying to say, my point is why? Sure, you can show drawings representing penises and various sex acts...but to why? Sure, you can try to shock people but I was less shocked and left wondering why and what makes this worth seeing? If you want to see a "dirty film", why not chose something better? Is there some sort of creepy underground for this sort of stuff that I am not aware of or is this just for shock value?

ellis1138 I found the images to be insightful, and was glad to see that the director was not afraid to portray the feminine in depth. It's very hard to explain, since this short is an abstract, but I enjoyed it thoroughly. Some people may be uncomfortable with the overt sexual imagery, though, especially the scene in the garden.