Bolero

One thing to remember about "Bolero" is that the reason lots of people went to see it on its initial release was that the MPAA wanted to rate it "X". Jon and Bo decided to release it without a rating in order to avoid having to make cuts to their masterwork. As a result, there was a lot of fanfare around the release of "Bolero." A whole lot of people (okay, let's be completely honest--"a whole lot of men") flocked to the theaters because of this controversy, figuring, "Hey, if the MPAA wanted it to be 'X,' it must be pretty steamy stuff. So here's our golden opportunity to see what those darn censors tried to protect us from."

Having worked in a theater that exhibited "Bolero" on its first run in 1984, I can attest to the fact that, during most showings, at least a third of the audience walked out before the half-way mark. A lot of people demanded their money back on this one. To be frank, a fair number of them were disappointed because they expected explicit pornography and instead only got soft-core.

Bo is in search of ecstasy--"E-X-T-A-S-Y," as her character says early in the story. Later in the movie, during a fantasy sequence, Bo sees a neon sign that reads, "Extasy." She says, "See? I was right - 'X'," then makes an "X" in front of her face with her two index fingers. (The scene is actually much funnier in context (unintentionally funny, that is), but I don't want to spoil the movie's only entertaining moment.)

Well, the MPAA was right - it should have been rated X. While the camera never gets as up-close and personal as one usually expects in pornography, it still carefully focuses your attention where it wants you to look--and I don't mean "at Bo's eyes". The camera even resorts to objectification a few times, showing people only from the neck to the hips--reducing people to body parts because the filmmakers want you to focus only on the sex and to forget about the characters and the plot, which is a basic staple of most mainstream pornography.

"Bolero" seemed to want to be a fable with the moral, "Sex with someone you love is infinitely better than casual sex." However, it tried to deliver this moral through soft-core porn that is mostly centered around casual sex, which strikes me as a conflict of interests.

"Bolero" wants to be pornography, but it also wants to be a morality play. It ultimately fails to be a good example of either one. "Deep Throat" and "The Opening of Misty Beethoven" had better plots, better scripts and better acting, and, to all appearances, their creators communicated their intentions more successfully.

Like Tanya Roberts' "Sheena," if "Bolero" had been a little worse than it is, it could have become a camp classic. Sadly, the majority of "Bolero" is just plain not interesting. When people really love or really hate a movie, you at least know that the movie has enough substance to evoke such strong responses. The main response that "Bolero" evoked from people was yawns, which is one of the worst things a filmmaker can achieve.

I remember watching this movie at the theater when it came out. I laughed my butt off and embarrassed my husband. I think he threatened to move on several occasions. But the lady that sat in front of me was laughing just as hard. Some other idiotic scene would happen, the lady would look back at me, and we would both start laughing. Don't watch the movie expecting something erotic and you may actually enjoy it. I mean, come on guys, would you really want to make love to a woman after she rode a horse bare-back while naked? But the real kicker was when she finally found "the one" and the neon sign started flashing the word exstacy and no I didn't misspell that! I've heard of bells going off, but neon signs? If you watch it for the "camp" factor, you may actually enjoy it.

I really don't think you will like this unless you are a fan of Bo Derek, or someone else in the movie. Yes, I rented it because of Andrea Occhipinti. I was really let down though. That is one of the stupidest movie I've seen! I mean, other than the fact that Bo Derek is a total airhead that can't even act, and ain't very pretty either, the plot is so weak!

I mean, she is supposed to play a 18 year old I guess, but she looks about 30! But anyway...she goes on a hunt to find someone to lose her virginity too. (Yea, yea, I'm SURE she would be a virgin with the we she acted in the beginning!) And she finds Angel (Occhipinti), and they hook up...And she's obsessed with finding extacy w/him. There are a couple of really *detailed* sex scenes! I was really suprised with that! If watching flaky Bo Derek in a bad soft-core porno is your thing, then hey, go for it!

But this is just my opinion! ~*~3/10~*~

Bo Derek plays a college graduate who is also a virgin - and she's unconvincing on both counts. Yes, her belly-dancing scene is a highlight, but did she have to wear so much make-up all the time? The rest of the film is a plotless, worthless affair, but at least it doesn't take itself all that seriously; and it's this intentionally campy approach that keeps it at least semi-bearable. (**)

Yes "Bolero" is that bad. Sure seeing Bo Derek nude is a pleasure. But you could save time and money and look at a vintage issue of Playboy.

And the plot? What plot? Bo has a lover who is impotent. She tries to....ahem....cure him. And the last scene is a howler. Yes I am going to ruin it. He is finally able to perform sexually with Bo and as they do we actually see NEON signs that say : ECSTASY.

Yes it is true. I am not making this up. Who would have ever thought that Derek's version of Tarzan could ever look like a classic in comparison to any other film?