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