Eating Raoul

1982 "A tasty comedy of bad manners."
6.8| 1h27m| R| en
Details

A relatively boring Los Angeles couple discover a bizarre, if not murderous way to get funding for opening a restaurant.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 7-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever
Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.
ksf-2 Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov star as a married couple, in this caper to raise money. They want to make enough dough to open their own restaurant. Even if what they have to do for the money is a little illegal. Like a John Waters film, the script is goofy, and no-one TRIES to be funny, they all just be themselves, and its hilarious. Here, we have the bonus of seeing some big-time stars in their early roles -- Robert Beltran, so famous from Star Trek, is Raoul, the Mexican wheeler dealer in his very second role. Some great "cameos" (BEFORE they were stars...) Ed Begley(swinger), Edie McClurg(swinger), and of course Buck Henry(swinger AND banker). Not to mention John Landis. A pretty funny scene at the adult bookstore when Paul goes to buy "supplies". Also some funny stuff going on at the swinger's party about an hour in. "Howard", one of the guests really WAS an LA DJ, which explains why he says what he says.... it's all pretty funny. nothing too complicated. all neatly wrapped up at the end. Written and directed by Paul Bartel. (who, incidentally also wrote and directed "Class Struggle in Beverly Hills", which ALSO starred Robert Beltran... )
preppy-3 Paul and Mary Bland (Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov) are a VERY goody-goody down to earth couple who want to open a restaurant but they can't get the money. One night Paul kills a man who attacks Mary. They find out he has lots of money. So they decide to put up a sexual ad, lure men into their apartment, kill them and take their money. Then hot hunky Raoul (Robert Beltran) finds out and demands a cut.I caught this back in 1982 at a theatre. Back then it was a VERY dark and funny comedy. A big hit too. Now, 30 years later, it's still funny but not even remotely as outrageous as it used to be. We've gone beyond this movie in terms of black comedy. Also I found it sometimes too low-key. Still it was enjoyable. Bartel and Woronov are both great in their roles. They were friends in real life and their affection for each other comes through. Also they are hysterical in their roles. Beltran is pretty good too. He's not as good as comedy as Bartel and Woronov but he's young, handsome and hunky and that's what the role calls for. Also Susan Saiger is great in her small role as Doris the dominatrix. This movie is not explicit--the murders are all off screen and there's no blood or gore. So it's funny but not that black anymore. I give it a 7.
funkyfry Paul and Mary Bland (Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov) do everything right. They're neat freaks, they collect good wines and serve the best food to their guests, and they sleep in individual beds just like the Nelsons on TV. Basically they're an "ideal" 1950s couple, transplanted into a cruddy apartment building full of swingers and drug addicts. Their only dream is to own a bed and breakfast in the country, and they invent a devious scheme to rob the swingers en masse. After all, why should they continue to suffer for playing by the rules, when everyone else is just so disgusting. Paul and Mary were meant for each other, and they are determined to live their dream.It's a very funny movie, and it has the consistency of style that marks Bartel as one of the most interesting directors working in "shlock." He doesn't condescend towards his own characters, and that makes the film hold up despite the weird situations that develop. And he's not afraid to make something tacky look tacky. But there's nothing "fake" about Paul and Mary Bland -- Paul truly is an expert on wine, and Mary's not a bad cook. They aren't delusional like a lot of characters in satire are.The actual scam seems to involve no risk. Nobody is able to withstand Paul and his deadly frying pan (shades of "Bucket of Blood" here -- this is almost a 1980s remake of that Corman classic). But Raoul (Robert Beltran) ignites the fire of sexual passion in Mary's bosom, and threatens the marriage albeit briefly. What I find interesting about the whole situation is that Raoul is totally convinced that Paul is a complete cuckold and that he's very naive. Meanwhile Paul institutes his own reign of terror on Raoul, convincing him that he has a VD, and Mary ultimately shows loyalty to her "perfect mate." So it's actually the ridiculously and almost stereotypically passionate "latin lover" Raoul who is the naive one. Paul and Mary Bland have a relationship that seems ridiculous and screams out to be made fun of, but it's the one thing that this film refuses to ridicule. And that's what holds the entire film together.
moonspinner55 Writer-director Paul Bartel co-stars with statuesque Mary Woronov as a prudish married couple in Los Angeles who hope to someday open their own quaint restaurant. Funding proves to be their sticking point, until one night a calamitous run-in with a wealthy swinger gives the pair a twisted new idea. Uneven dark farce with the germ of a great comic premise--and blessed with the talented leads to nearly pull it off successfully. Woronov, with her incredulous sexiness, gets possibly her best screen role here, and her sisterly rapport with Bartel is perfect within this context. It's a very slight movie however, with small, quirky laughs sharing space with frantic gags and dumb jokes. Bartel (as a filmmaker) doesn't trust himself completely, and his pacing is so slow that many potentially funny lines or ideas are muffled. Still, the plot is worked out satisfyingly and the film's better moments stay in the memory. ** from ****