Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!reiher From: reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: "Bolero" Message-ID: <1223@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Sun, 16-Sep-84 18:24:38 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.1223 Posted: Sun Sep 16 18:24:38 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 03:48:57 EDT Organization: UCLA CS Dept. Lines: 18 Not fair to give credit to John Derek for the admittedly pretty cinematography when he wasn't the cinematographer. I'm willing to let him continue using a still camera, but keep that man away from the movies. As to it being more erotic than a porn film, sure, but that isn't terribly difficult to do. My point is that the film was sold, from prior to its shooting to this very minute, as daring erotica, and it doesn't make it as such. In my opinion, the script, direction, and acting are so excrutiatingly bad that standard R rated erotic sequences (and not as many as you'd expect) do not save it. I've seen all of the films that people in this newsgroup have been claiming are the worst film of the eighties, and none of them are the offense against the cinema that "Bolero" is. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher