उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

If you're looking for a well-scripted plot,believable characters, firm direction and seamless editing then Bolero is a strange film to see. I cannot believe that Bo Derek's character finds it impossible to lose her virginity anywhere but in Spain. The film itself lacks interesting plot and characters and most of the time is just plain boring. However, I suspect that just about everyone, myself included, who sees this film only sees it for one thing - The Body, and it does not disappoint. The lighting and camera work shows off Ms Derek's shape to best advantage although the end fantasy scene is spoilt by flashes of light.

I've given a rating of 3 for Bolero simply because The Body lifts it above 1. If you want to see Bo derek's body, watch this or Tarzan the Ape Man. If you want to watch anything else, watch something else.

While this isn't the disaster that most everyone seems to think that it is, "Bolero" is still pretty weak. The storyline is okay, at least it was enough to keep me mildly entertained, but I have to admit that the film was certainly dragged down by Bo's inability to act. The abduction scene towards the end also stands out as rather pathetic, and I was unable to take this movie seriously for the remaining few scenes. In other words, there are serious flaws that hamper this film, and I certainly don't recommend it, but there is no way that this is one of the worst films of the 1980's.

"Bo - Leer Oh!"

"What?"

"Bo Derek is easy on the eyes"

"So?"

"Bo Derek is easy on the eyes"

"Yes, but what about the story?"

"There is no story but Bo Derek is easy on the eyes ...... and parts of the sound track are very easy on the ears."

Unfortunately apart from this the film was a disaster which had a very adverse effect on the careers, and probably also the personal lives, of those principally involved.

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 actually went to a midnight showing of "Bolero" the first Saturday it came out. I was with a bunch of friends from college. We thought, "the reviewers must be mad. How bad can a film with Bo Derek in it, be?"

This was bad. I'll sum this up by reporting the thing that has been in my mind about this film for the past 19 years.

There was scattered laughter coming from the theater throughout the showing. I couldn't help it, I burst out laughing too at the slow dialogue, bad acting, etc. But around the 25 minute mark, a few people got up and walked out. This was happening all throughout the theater. Other folks were clapping when folks left. That WAS the most entertaining parts of this film.

I did sit through almost to the end the movie with my friends (which made the entire experience worth while) and we decided to go to the box-office to get our money back.

Too late. There was a new big RED sign hanging from the window that read:

"No Refunds"

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. (**)

Ok, I admit it. BO has a beautiful body. And I will admit this too. Bolero is so bad that it easily ranks as one of the worst movies ever made. The most shocking part is Academy Award winner George Kennedy is in it(I guess he likes Derek in the nude as well). Written and directed by her late husband John Derek. >

I saw this movie on cable late one night while staying at a friend's house, around that age when you're young enough to think "squiggle porn" is cool. (For those of you who don't know, that means trying to catch a glimpse of nudity on a scrambled cable channel.) Even at that easily-impressed-by-nudity age, this movie dragged. The story was terrible. The acting was agonizing, making even the nudity-laden scenes unwatchable. And I was a teenage boy. Now *that's* a bad movie.

Lida MacGillivery (Bo Derek) is a free-spirited girl graduating from a British boarding school. She travels around the world to have adventures with her chauffeur Cotton (George Kennedy) and friend Catalina. She tries to lose her virginity to a young Sheik but he falls asleep. In Spain, she falls for bullfighter Angel despite a jealous gypsy. She befriends Paloma (Olivia d'Abo). Angel is injured by a bull and can't perform sexually.

If the goal is to see Bo Derek naked, this achieves that goal. However, almost everything in this is laughable. The story is overwrought stupidity that is only worthy of the worst pulp romance novels. The acting is even worst. Bo Derek is unbelievable as a young virginal girl. This may work as softcore porn but I think John Derek is actually serious.

I first saw this film on late night cable tv back in the late 80's. And what I saw was a movie in which its images will stay with me for a long time. Although the actual film is nothing special, the tasteful nude sex scenes are some of the most beautiful ever filmed. Sure, John Derek didn't make a great picture and Bo's acting leaves much to be desired. But her astounding beauty and her love scenes with Andrea Occhipinti are great.

Lida (the sexy Bo Derek) is fresh out of the all-girls English boarding school. Lida's last act of rebellion was to streak across the school courtyard butt-naked. I think this is gonna be good. Finally earning her inheritance upon graduation, Lida decides than she needs to do a little globe-trotting to find the right man to make her a woman. With her chauffeur and best friend in tow she sets out to lose her virginity and the ways of love. She's out and about and looking for love. MEEE-OWWWW! The lovely Derek parades her assets for all to see (her husband, John Derek was the director) and very little will be left to you imagination. This erotic drama is wonderfully filmed, whether the English countryside, Spain or Bo's cleavage it all looks good. For what it was the performances were as good as one could expect out of the material which includes the lovely Olivia d' Abo in her first role. If you like "The Blue Lagoon (1980)" or "Paradise (1982)" you probably like "Bolero".

Hollywood hasn't been an exceptionally kind place for Bo Derek. As American film's girl of the moment in the late 1970s and early 80s, Derek won adoration from millions of men, but also was the target of jokes about cute blonds who can't act. When first stealing attention as Dudley Moore's love interest in '10,' Bo was a model with connections to Hollywood power brokers through her husband John; she had virtually no acting skills. Movie companies were ready to profit from her looks but in no hurry to suggest drama classes, so things were headed for eventual disaster.

'Bolero' was Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus's attempt to cash in on the Bo Derek legend, a film written and directed by John Derek with Bo serving as producer. The film made quite a stir upon its release, as MPAA judges threatened an 'X' rating, that kiss of death for mass-market distribution. Cannon Films used the second option, releasing 'Bolero' as an unrated picture. It's been said that many visited cinemas with the hope of endless nudity and sex, but instead walked out early and demanded refunds. This film is definitely bad, although I can't understand what people were expecting from a mainstream theatre.

'Bolero' is a weird film to see. Bo Derek is completely miscast in the lead role, there is no almost no plot, and there is no meaningful dialogue. But the technical aspects of the film are so proficient that it looks much better than it really is. The photographic knowledge of John Derek really shows through, as we are given an array of colorful settings (and Bo, of course) that are very pleasing to the eye.

Mr. Derek was no D.H. Lawrence, however, and his scribblings for 'Bolero' remind me of those ornate poems I wrote in high school: the ones that sounded nice but didn't really have a point. 'Bolero' is major league fluff that wanders through knuckle-headed 'action' scenes and never-ending conversation. You'd think any guy making a film for his wife would be kind enough to write a storyline.

Bo plays Ayre McGillvary, a virginal (!) heiress who graduates from her elite ladies' school in 1920s Britain; whether she is graduating from high school or college, it is never made clear. Infatuated with Rudolph Valentino, Ayre feels it's time to discover her sexuality and get swept off her feet by a handsome sheik. She drags her best friend Catalina (Ana Obregón) and chauffeur Cotton (George Kennedy) to Morocco, hooks up with an enrobed young man who turns out to be an Oxford student, and watches him fall asleep on the verge of making love.

The trio truck to Spain and Ayre meets a bullfighter, Angel (Andrea Occhipinti); they share a love of wine and horses. Ayre makes love for the first time at sunrise, then watches Angel get the family jewels mauled in a bullring, leaving him unable to perform sexually. Ayre vows to 'repair' him, taking bullfight lessons and rejuvenating his spirit.

Derek was 27 upon the film's release and is much too old for this part. You can almost feel a compassion for her as she is delivering the stupid lines, trying to make something of her role ('I believe today is the day I become an excessively rich little bitch!' 'I'm not a virgin anymore!' **slaps my forehead**). I actually think Derek is a somewhat better actress than widely felt, but the plot and character she is given are so ridiculous that not even Elizabeth Taylor or Gwyneth Paltrow would be able to put life into them. The supporting roles are equally as bad; George Kennedy won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in 1967 ('Cool Hand Luke') and it looks as if he's just trying to stay in the movie business.

Probably the biggest FAQ about this film is why John Derek put his wife in so many erotic situations with two other men. I wouldn't be too thrilled if it were my spouse…The DVD was recently released by MGM and comes in widescreen format only with three-language subtitles. Cannon Films' theatrical trailer is included as an extra.

* out of 4

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.

The justification for making this movie, I'm convinced, was John Derek's need to show off just how hot the woman he came home to was, while cashing in on her international fame. In today's world, they simply would have put a sex tape on the internet. To be fair, Bo was pretty hot and more interesting on screen than say, Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton. Nonetheless, this movie fails spectacularly as cinema, but has something of a legacy as having pushed then-acceptable boundaries of celebrity exhibitionism. The initial theatrical release of the picture was held up while the MPAA rating board squabbled with the studio (MGM) over cuts. Eventually it was released in an 'unrated' version which looked pretty racy at the time, although it would be routine now on Cinemax late at night. The set decoration is quite sumptuous in a Playboy pictorial sort of way and that's where the money got spent. The script is an embarrassment, full of throwaway nonsense about 1920's libertinism, as the Valentino-obsessed main character goes looking (very slowly) for first a Sheikh and then a matador to fulfil her romantic needs. That's the whole story and pretty thin it is even for a sex film. Not the worst movie ever, but pretty bad overall and excruciating to sit through unless you're a Bo fan. I was.

Oh gee, I was thinking of an enjoyable adult romp via this infamous Derek outing, but it proved to be too much "story" and not enough nitty gritty. Bo is beautiful as always while her hubby, John, proved once again that he isn't the best director.

There's some sort of "Plot" where a young woman roams the world wanting to lose her virginity to the right man or something like that. I wasn't really sure what was going on halfway through the film. I lost interest at that point.

It's all a silly affair with bad acting and a pointless story with the professional actor, George Kennedy, adding some anchor to this somewhat low grade mess. Other than that, It's just all of a silly "soft porn" outing and definitely doesn't live up to the erotic reputation it was expected to have.

I mistakenly ordered this dud online and ended up having to impatiently fast forward to get to the good stuff. There's not much either once you get to it. Everything takes place in the dark with a flickering fire in the background.

I'm reminded of that old XXX porno flick called "Rambone" that I rented from the local video store once. It was silly stuff about a Rambo rip off who gets captured by beautiful Russian agents who torture him by tickling him with feathers to get him to talk. Does he eventually spill the beans? I don't know. I was more interested in what was going on rather than following the stupid story.

This adult movie, on the other hand, wants you to follow the stupid "story" rather than getting to the juicy stuff which makes it totally dull. It would be like watching "Rambone" without all the kinky elements involved in it.

Bolero has always has a bad reputation ever since its release in 1984 and that proves true today. It's an excellent curiosity item though, but don't expect much once you do eventually see it. A comic book would have a better tale than what is depicted here. A total dud.

I saw this movie because I figured, hey, Bo Derek running around nude for 90 minutes or so... what could be wrong with that? Even if the plot sucked, still, Bo Derek nude.

I was wrong.

The problem is that the movie is so bad that you can't even lust after her. You just end up feeling sorry for her, wishing she would stop embarrassing herself. Oh please, Bo, put some clothes on and leave this movie so that I can at least fantasize about you again. But no, it goes on and on, and she just seems more and more pathetic and sad and unattractive as the movie goes on.

What a load of trash this movie is. This movie (How this can be called a movie is beyond me) is random and rather weird, and the plot is incredibly paper-thin. Basically, Lida (Bo Derek) is in search of losing her virginity, so she travels to Spain in search of a man. Cue loads of arousing yet pointless sexual scenes, such as Bo riding on a horse naked and her covered in honey being licked clean. Yes, it is full of nudity, but it's just pointless. This is more likely to be considered pornography, than a film. It's films like these which ruin Hollywood, full of trashy porn with terrible scripts, awful acting and a silly film title as well. Why on Earth John Derek wanted his wife writhing around naked in this movie is beyond me. It just gets to the point of plain sickening and unintentionally funny.

Bo Derek naked in a movie. Hmm... you might as well say: Bo Diddley playing a guitar. Everyday occurrences in an everyday existence. Like you people never read Playboy. Uh-huh. Right.

Bo was good in "10". She didn't have to speak that much. That 1981 "Tarzan, the Ape Man" thing kinda went down the tubes. Ladies, the first person you DON'T want directing your movies is your husband; they're too biased.

Just Ask Cleo Moore about Hugo Haas sometime.

"Bolero" is NOT the kind of movie you watch for plot, character development and cohesion. Not that you get any here, anyway, but just expect that going in. You watch this for the "good stuff". And I don't mean the nudity. In fact, the only one who doesn't drop trou here is George Kennedy (thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU GEORGE!). I mean, the "GOOD STUFF".

Wink, wink...nudge, nudge...sophomoric comments...locker room humor....

So, are there any here?

Nope.

None.

Not a one.

There nearly are, but the lighting comes and goes here at the most inopportune times and it just ruins the mood. Except for the scene where Bo practices belly dancing. What can I say; I'm a sucker for a belly dancer when they look like her.

Everything else is strictly amateur hour as far as acting, photography, production goes.

One star (yes, for the belly-dancing thing). And if you've seen a Playboy pictorial on Bo, you've seen "Bolero".

You could say I am a connoisseur of bad movies, always searching for the ones so terribly made, ones that make me laugh throughout and this is one of them. Without a doubt I can say that this movie ranks in my top 10 bad movies among such greats as Samurai Cop, Miami Connection and Troll 2. The plot of this movie mainly centres around Bo Derek trying to lose her virginity, first in Morocco and then Spain where she pursues a matador who has an affinity for 14 year old gypsies. I don't want to spoil anymore to those that want to seek this movie out but what I just described is only some of the utter ridiculousness that this film offers. I am surprised this one isn't mentioned amongst the great terrible movies on any lists that I have seen, anybody who loves awful movies should do themselves a favour and watch this immediately.

It was 1984 and I was in college. Also I'm gay (but I wasn't out then). A bunch of my friends decided to see this new X-rated (actually it was unrated--now it's R) Bo Derek flick. I had zero desire to see it but went along anyways. I was hoping there might be some hot male nudity (there wasn't). I can't even remember the plot! All I can remember was the audience reactions. It was all guys (of course) and everybody was quiet for the first 20 minutes--then people started snickering or fighting not to laugh out loud. What were they laughing at? The acting was terrible, the script was even worse, the purported hot sex scenes were pretty mild and, basically, Derek can't act! But above all it was pretty dull. Finally one guy burst out laughing at some particularly idiotic exchange and that was it! The audience lost it and we were all in hysterics during virtually the entire movie! We were yelling things back at the screen and literally tearing the movie to ribbons. The final sex scene (which was faked but the studio SAID it was real) got a little attention but not enough. Basically everybody walked out of the theatre still laughing or just saying (with a big grin) how TERRIBLE that film was! If u watch this for camp value with a bunch of friends u might like it. Otherwise forget it. Also the nudity and sex is pretty tame. It's VERY R rated.