Pink Flamingos

1972

Comedy / Crime

22
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 72% · 49 reviews
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 72% · 10K ratings
IMDb Rating 6.0/10 10 30435 30.4K

drug dealer van jealousy trailer park heroin pop culture

Plot summary

Notorious Baltimore criminal and underground figure Divine goes up against Connie & Raymond Marble, a sleazy married couple who make a passionate attempt to humiliate her and seize her tabloid-given title as "The Filthiest Person Alive".

Director

John Waters Photo
John Waters

Top cast

John Waters Photo
John Waters as Mr. J
Mink Stole Photo
Mink Stole as Connie Marble
George Stoll Photo
George Stoll as Onlooker
Cookie Mueller Photo
Cookie Mueller as Cookie
720p.BluRay 1080p.BluRay
861.99 MB
1200*720
English 2.0
NR
Subtitles us  
23.976 fps
1 hr 33 min
Seeds 6
1.56 GB
1800*1080
English 2.0
NR
Subtitles us  
23.976 fps
1 hr 33 min
Seeds 52

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by sadnuggetofchicken 6 / 10

"Oh my God Almighty! Someone has sent me a bowel movement!"

Before watching this film, keep in mind that it is not for the faint of heart, it includes, but not limited to: Chicken brutality, Chicken uhhh intercourse, dog feces consumption, feces, vomit, cannibalism, and more. Hopefully that paints a picture.The film, if you're into films, is very notorious. Before watching this movie a day ago it was always brought up that dog feces had something to do with this movie. They were not lying, nonono not one bit. What a way to buy my first Criterion film huh?If you ask me, this film isn't too funny. The humor, for me, was mainly just gross-out-- which isn't all that funny, i was just sort of laughing at how absurd it was and how uncomfortable i was. For reference, this isn't my first rodeo with disturbing, nasty, and shocking films. I've seen the Japanese Guinea Pig movies alongside many others that pop into your head when i mention that. This film always seemed to be recommended to me , due to me enjoying the shock value.There are so many things to say about this film and i'm not interested in spoiling it. My main problems are : Strange drawn out scenes, done only for shock--parts in the movie that just make no sense and don't need to be there-- and every scene Crackers is in. Crackers somehow happens to make every scene he's in (i'm exaggerating, i'm talking about two in particular) uncomfortable and needless.Now what this film has going for it is John Water's visuals, dialogue, quotables, and bizarre plot. If you were to attempt at explaining this movie from start to finish to somebody, scene for scene, it would be quicker to just show them the damn movie. Its definitely a cult classic, not perfect, but not bad and i look forward to doing a rewatch in the future.Although i don't love this movie as much as most, if you can handle it, id consider giving it a watch.
Reviewed by mxw-2 5 / 10

RIGHT(tm).

The Divine and Doggie bit at the end is a bit much for me; I have to turn away. But a lot of it's pretty hysterical -- and it obviously works since folks are complaining why anyone would make a movie like this.The answer, of course, is: to annoy folks who would complain why anyone would make a movie like this.Don't be fooled by those who would have you believe that there's some deep meaning in, or mark of genius on, this film. There isn't. There is, though, a kind of bizarre, kinetic and desperate energy to this nonsensical enterprise.I didn't hate it. There, that's my review: I didn't hate it.I tend to agree with Ebert in this regard: this film is an object. It simply "is," and no amount of explaining will settle your nerves after you've seen it, nor convince you to see it in the first place.
Read more IMDb reviews

5 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment