Shades

1999 "A frantic film within a film."
5.2| 1h36m| en| More Info
Released: 19 October 1999 Released
Producted By: Multicom Entertainment Group
Country: Belgium
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

In this film within a film, a Belgian serial killer escapes prison and finds that a filmmaker is making a movie about his life. A maverick director, a merciless producer, an insubordinate star, and a conviced serial killer all try to survive the deadliest place on Earth: a movie set.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Multicom Entertainment Group

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??
ShangLuda Admirable film.
Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.
Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
CharlotteBronte66 I honestly don't understand why everyone hates this movie. I can see why Mickey Rourke took the project. This film came onto my radar because I am a "foreign film" fan and I thought, "hell, Mickey Rourke is in it...it can't be all bad." So I ordered it. I was pleasantly surprised. It was an exploration of the film business as a business. That's what this film is about, ultimately. It isn't about anything else. The plot line is simply a hook to get people to watch it -- this is a movie about what it's like to make a movie, and more importantly, what it takes to make it in "Hollyood". I took 2 stars away from the total because Bervoets is so annoying that he makes me want to enter menopause early and get it over with. After watching the film, I understood completely why Mickey Rourke did the movie (and it wasn't just for the job or the money, which he probably desperately needed at the time.) Mickey carries the film, cast and crew (including make up artists and key grips all the way through from beginning to end. This film is a lesson in "Hollywood-ese" and "Hollywood Bullshit". It was probably cathartic for Rourke to do it, to experience, even if it is just in a very small way, what it's like to have to direct himself! He saw it as an opportunity in therapy, to walk a mile in another mans shoes. He also got the experience of telling the truth about where his career was at, at the time. (Scene: "Look, there's a reason you and I are here in Belgium, doing this little movie and it's cuz we're not on top anymore" (or something to that effect.)His scene with Michelle in his hotel room where he tells her to cut it out, and that at the "end of the day, you'll just be a two dollar whore" is spot on the money. And he's clearly not justtalking about actresses, or even the movie business in general. (Although that was probably his "motivation", if you will forgive the reference.) He's talking about YOU, or ME, or anyone, who does what they do, so they can just take the next rung on the ladder. When he tells Lily, the makeup artist, not to sleep with the star, his voice has the ring of truth to it...the sound of a man who's seen it all before: a crew member with stars in her eyes about to get used and abused by a "leading man". He looks at her with true pity and compassion --- like someone who has already seen the outcome of such a situation and he's genuinely trying to spare her the pain, because he thinks she's actually a nice person who probably doesn't deserve it.In an interview with 'Inside the Actor's Studio", Mickey Rourke said that if he hadn't been an actor, he would have probably been a contractor (i.e. construction). Truly, there is a God, since that did NOT happen. Thank you God, for giving us Mickey Rourke.I have not found any proof of what I am about to say, but I would be willing to lay down a paycheck, that Mickey Rourke not only had a hand in the script, but that he also "consulted" on this movie, for the actual director, in how the "real world" of Hollywood "works". Mickey has to be the most under-valued, under-rated and un-appreciated actors/thespians of all time, and all because he refuses to bow to the golden calf that is the Academy. God bless Mickey Rourke....he's not just another artist. He's a true Artist, capital A, in a world of mediocre assholes (captial A) This movie proved it. What a waste. Decent script, but Mickey Rourke carries the whole movie. And you will probably enjoy it, if you want to know what film-making and the politics and the bullshit are all about. This film will give it to you, on a silver platter, served by Mickey Rourke. Good on ya Mickey. (PS --nice little scene also, with Loki, Mickey's favorite dog...she has a nice cameo!)I hope you take the chance on this one. I'm not sure what Mickey Rourke himself thinks of it, but if he ever sees this, I hope he will take my compliment in the spirit its intended: F'em , Mickey. You're right, and they're wrong. And you told the truth. God bless ya!
Jonathan Maxwell Reeves I liked this movie very much. Erik Van Looy is a good director. Proof is his other movie Ad Fundum. Shades is a very special movie. You must be familar with the (Belgian) movie industry to understand most of the story. In my opinion this movie is a biography of the Belgian director/screenplaywriter Guy Lee Thys and guess what ? He's also one of the 3 screenplaywriters of Shades :-) Coincidence or....???? I had alot of fun with this movie because I recognize alot of facts and urban legends about the Belgian Movie industry in it. If you never been 'an insider' in the Belgian Movie industry you'll find this movie a bit boring maybe altrough there're some great actors in it who play very nice like Mike Verdrengh and Gene Bervoets. Mickey Rourke is okay but I saw better movies of him. It's worth a try, but don't expect an easy movie. It's a special movie and that's why some people call it a bad movie, but I do not agree with that. Not the best Belgian movie ever made, but certainly not the worst movie either. That credit goes to 'De leeuw van Vlaanderen' but that's another story.
now_its_dark This film was shot in my home town, the main reason I went to see it. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. While certainly not a masterpiece, 'Shades' is a treat for two reasons : its mild albeit funny comment on the film industry and its unashamed 'American' approach. Its main aim is to entertain, and if it manages to work on quite a few levels along the way, who's gonna complain? A smart blend of fact and fiction, it focuses on the filming of the life of serial killer Freddy Lebeck -who, as Belgian viewers may note, looks an eerie lot like real-life mass murderer Freddy Horion. He, for one, is famous for never taking of his shades. Slick and fast-paced direction makes for a flashy thriller, and although no-one in it will be winning an Oscar any time soon, the many jokes and winks will help to hold your attention until the very end -which, I will reveal, is pretty original in comparison to what Belgian cinema has been calling conclusions lately. Add to this the admirable quality to poke fun at itself, and it's perfect for a rainy day.
thierry-9 This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!