It's best not to know what happens. If you haven't seen the film you shouldn't read my remarks. Be wary of reading other peoples', too.
I could have lived with a woman falling in love with her kidnapper. No doubt it happens. Even if it doesn't happen, there's no reason why it shouldn't serves as the basis of a good story. It sounds like the basis of an excellent story.
One thing to make clear - although it's an obvious enough point - the film has no message, let alone the message: "If you really love a woman, and want her to love you, kidnap her." That's in the form of an imperative, and Almodóvar's film, whatever else it is, is not in imperatival; form. (This is not trivial; some films ARE imperatival.)
Even if there were a message of some kind, it would not be easy to work out what it is, since it's next to impossible to work out what relevant truths hold in the world of the fiction. Is the love that develops between Marina and Ricky ultimately a healthy love, or not? Do Ricky's extreme tactics work in general, or do they only work on people whose lives are like Marina's? Or do they only work in this particular case? Are Ricky's actions meant to be justified - in the world of the fiction - or are they unjustified even there? All of these are hard to tell. I'm not sure if this is a bad thing.
What I am sure is a bad thing is that the heroine, Marina, is too passive. (I mean "too passive" in its literal sense; I'm not using it as code for "not feminist enough".) She should have made a genuine effort to escape - just once. Or she should have been more cunning - at least on occasion. Or she should have spoken out more. Or, just once, she should have snapped. She comes close to doing all of these things, but she always draws back. It's frustrating.
I've realised - just as I was typing the previous paragraph - that she DOES make one concerted effort to escape; it's when Ricky is out getting beaten up by thugs. And to be fair, it IS dramatically apt that this attempt occur just before she finds she's fallen in love with him - otherwise the story would be the even more unsatisfying one of how Ricky gradually wore her down. Still, it would have been better if she had been a more active character, in SOME respect, earlier on.
-Okay, so maybe I'm wrong about the "too passive" thing, but my other two complaints still stand. Firstly, and less importantly, Ricky never pays any price either for his actions or for the prize he eventually wins. He never has to experience guilt; he never loses any battle, on any front, with Marina. (He gets beaten up, of course, but that doesn't count: it's for the unrelated crime of pinching drugs.) Secondly, the kidnapping story is all the more unsatisfying because it's basically all we get. The other two Almodóvar films I've seen both have a rich undergrowth of supporting character and sub-plot, which this one lacks. While not all films need such an undergrowth, this one does. -It's not that there are no other characters. Take the lecherous old director, for instance. He steps on stage to spark off part of the story, but thereafter Almodóvar does NOTHING with him. Yet we continue to see him every so often. Why? I suspect because Almodóvar wanted to cut away every so often, and needed something to cut away to.
"Tie me up, etc." has many typical Almodóvar strengths - glorious colours, fascinating characters, strong narrative grip - but it's all a bit flat. The director has done better at least twice. I suspect he usually does better.
I could have lived with a woman falling in love with her kidnapper. No doubt it happens. Even if it doesn't happen, there's no reason why it shouldn't serves as the basis of a good story. It sounds like the basis of an excellent story.
One thing to make clear - although it's an obvious enough point - the film has no message, let alone the message: "If you really love a woman, and want her to love you, kidnap her." That's in the form of an imperative, and Almodóvar's film, whatever else it is, is not in imperatival; form. (This is not trivial; some films ARE imperatival.)
Even if there were a message of some kind, it would not be easy to work out what it is, since it's next to impossible to work out what relevant truths hold in the world of the fiction. Is the love that develops between Marina and Ricky ultimately a healthy love, or not? Do Ricky's extreme tactics work in general, or do they only work on people whose lives are like Marina's? Or do they only work in this particular case? Are Ricky's actions meant to be justified - in the world of the fiction - or are they unjustified even there? All of these are hard to tell. I'm not sure if this is a bad thing.
What I am sure is a bad thing is that the heroine, Marina, is too passive. (I mean "too passive" in its literal sense; I'm not using it as code for "not feminist enough".) She should have made a genuine effort to escape - just once. Or she should have been more cunning - at least on occasion. Or she should have spoken out more. Or, just once, she should have snapped. She comes close to doing all of these things, but she always draws back. It's frustrating.
I've realised - just as I was typing the previous paragraph - that she DOES make one concerted effort to escape; it's when Ricky is out getting beaten up by thugs. And to be fair, it IS dramatically apt that this attempt occur just before she finds she's fallen in love with him - otherwise the story would be the even more unsatisfying one of how Ricky gradually wore her down. Still, it would have been better if she had been a more active character, in SOME respect, earlier on.
-Okay, so maybe I'm wrong about the "too passive" thing, but my other two complaints still stand. Firstly, and less importantly, Ricky never pays any price either for his actions or for the prize he eventually wins. He never has to experience guilt; he never loses any battle, on any front, with Marina. (He gets beaten up, of course, but that doesn't count: it's for the unrelated crime of pinching drugs.) Secondly, the kidnapping story is all the more unsatisfying because it's basically all we get. The other two Almodóvar films I've seen both have a rich undergrowth of supporting character and sub-plot, which this one lacks. While not all films need such an undergrowth, this one does. -It's not that there are no other characters. Take the lecherous old director, for instance. He steps on stage to spark off part of the story, but thereafter Almodóvar does NOTHING with him. Yet we continue to see him every so often. Why? I suspect because Almodóvar wanted to cut away every so often, and needed something to cut away to.
"Tie me up, etc." has many typical Almodóvar strengths - glorious colours, fascinating characters, strong narrative grip - but it's all a bit flat. The director has done better at least twice. I suspect he usually does better.