dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (GREEN) (09/10/84)
"Bolero" has one thing going for it; it replaces "At Long Last Love" as the worst movie of the past 25 years. Note that the "director" of each was/is romantically involved with the leading lady. Is there a correlation between movie quality and and who is sleeping with whom in the film? I think so. David S. Green AT&T Bell Labs ..mhuxi!dsg phone: 201-564-4468
ron@trsvax.UUCP (09/10/84)
#R:ucla-cs:-109000:trsvax:53700032:000:287 trsvax!ron Sep 10 10:09:00 1984 > George Kennedy, the only other name actor in the film, gives a reasonably > solid performance in a supporting role, and there's a dog which manages > to be convincingly natural in the role of a dog, but everyone else is > screamingly awful. And even the dog isn't that good as a dog.
carlo@oscvax.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) (09/12/84)
BORRRRRRING! If you want to see Bo Derek make it with a Spaniard (several times), then shell out the money or wait until you can see it on a VCR or Cable TV. If you want a story line beyond 'Debbie Does Dallas', then save your money. This one is nothing than a high-budget and high-profile version of those porn flicks that they've got in those little theatres that advertise '3 films for $3 with this ad' and have the curvatious nymphets on the marquee. If you ask me, don't bother.
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (09/14/84)
I haven't yet seen this "masterpiece", and I'm glad of it. If it comes
to cable I MAY bother to watch it.
The annoying thing is that it was one of the top grossing films over the
Labor Day weekend (according to Entertainment Tonight). Maybe they
meant to say it was one of the grossest.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarreiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/17/84)
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!reiherreiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/17/84)
I, too, have seen John and Bo's claim that "Hey, it's just a piece of fluff."
In my opinion, though, the fact that they didn't mean it seriously is no
excuse for incredible incompetence and stupidity. In fact, I think that
the Dereks' claims have only been made in light of their discovery of what
an atrocity their film really is. I was perfectly willing to accept something
other than high grade erotica from "Bolero", but it gave me absolutely
nothing. In my opinion, the rotten lines were rotten, not a clever attempt at
camp, and the inept acting was inept, not tongue in cheek. The only enjoyment
I got out of this film was by contemplating that, if there is any justice, John
Derek will never direct again.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherreiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/19/84)
Take a truly stupid story. Have it adapted into a screenplay by someone who
seems unfamiliar both with the way people speak in real life and the way they
speak in movies. Hire the worst actors you can find. Use the worst director
available, whose only previous movie was absolutely dreadful. Raise a fuss
over the sex scenes. Release it without a rating. Call it "Bolero".
For my money, "Bolero" is the worst film of the eighties so far, and they'll
have to scrape so far into the bottom of the barrel that they hit the floor
underneath to do any worse. I do not go around promiscuously calling films
terrible. Even trash usually has some element of interest. "Bolero" is
absolutely worthless. In my life, after seeing over 3000 films in theaters,
I've only walked out of a film twice: once because I had to catch the last
bus of the evening or walk for miles through the snow, once because I had to
walk out of one film to get a chance to see another film which I probably could
never see again. I was sorely tempted to walk out of "Bolero", and nothing but
my record kept me in my seat. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone
else stayed.
"Bolero", set in the 1920s, stars Bo Derek as a young girl who wants to lose
her virginity in an exotic setting. This doesn't sound promising, but the
plot only gets worse. The only reason anyone would want to see this film is
for its supposedly hot sex scenes and ample opportunities to see Ms. Derek
naked. If this is what's drawing you to the film, I urge you to reconsider.
Obviously, the filmmakers were hoping that titillating sex scenes would make
the audience overlook the rest of the film's shortcomings. To mask such gross
incompetence behind sensationalism, though, they'd have to have had a scene in
which Ms. Derek gangbanged the Vienna Choir Boys in front of the Vatican at
high noon.
There are sex scenes and there is nudity, but not nearly as many or as much
as the advertisements would want you to believe. As far as the content of the
sex scenes goes, they are little more daring than what is shown in many R rated
films. As usual in Hollywood films, any shots of a penis are strictly
avoided, and we get only fleeting glimpses of the star's pubic hair. Mostly,
we see a lot of Bo Derek's breasts and ass, and lengthy shots of naked people
writhing about, discretely blocking their genitals with an arm or leg. John
Derek, Ms. Derek's husband and the director of this mess, could easily have
gotten an R rating with minimal cuts, if he had wanted it, but "Bolero" wouldn't
make a penny with an R rating.
One would have to go far to find worse acting in a professional film. I
cannot imagine what lead the producers and John Derek to cast such untalented
people, unless it was the vain hope that their ineptitude would make Bo look
better. No such luck. The supporting cast may be dreadful, but Bo gives one
of the worst performances I've ever seen. George Kennedy, the only other name
actor in the film, gives a reasonably solid performance in a supporting role,
and there's a dog which manages to be convincingly natural in the role of a dog,
but everyone else is screamingly awful. I suppose that, given a script which
wasn't so inane, some of them might have a fleeting career as bit players, but
I strongly doubt it. Most of them sport heavy accents which, mercifully, make
some of the dialog incomprehensible.
The photography is intermittently pretty, but anyone with enough money can
hire a reasonable cinematographer and get acceptable results. Elmer Bernstein,
who usually provides scores that are no worse than serviceable, is dragged down
by the general muck surrounding the film. If he has written a worse score, I
hope I never hear it. The other technical people do their jobs, with the
exception of the costume designer, who gives Bo Derek a wardrobe that does
little to accentuate her beauty, which "Bolero" convincingly demonstrates to
be her only asset.
The heaviest share of the blame belongs to John Derek, who came up with the
idiotic story, directed with no visible talent, and, I think, also wrote the
script. I don't care enough to check. The United Nations should pass a
resolution to prevent this guy from using a motion picture camera anywhere on
Earth (and, while they're at it, they should prevent him from using a pen for
anything other than his signature). What bothers me most about "Bolero" is
its horrible stupidity and amateurishness, which is particularly disheartening
in the face of its technical professionalism, and this can all be laid at Mr.
Derek's door.
On past occasions, I've said that a bad film's negatives should be scrapped to
make banjo picks. I hope this doesn't happen with "Bolero", as some poor
banjo player may inadvertently hold his pick up to the light one day and
be subjected to part of a frame of this trash.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher