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 don't know what to really make of this awkwardly flirtatious and odd Bo Derek starring vehicle presented by Cannon productions, which was directed / written by her husband John Derek. The film's racy tag-line reads "The Hottest Erotic Film Of The Century", but that's quite a stretch. This is what the feature wants to be, but however its becomes a laughably nonsensical romance story of sexual awakening that simply likes to focus on Derek's naïve character (in more than one way) in her quest to lose her virginity by travelling around the world in the 1920s. Searching far and wide for sexual fulfilment… well she only travels to two exotic places and finds the "ecstasy" she long desired by settling down with him in Spain. Although at first everything doesn't go entirely to plan. The boundless plot is rather dull, with only some bemusing sequences (milk and honey anybody or seduction by naked horseback riding?), risible dialogues ("That thing is going to work. I guarantee that") and the performances being the brightening spark. Outside of the irresistibly carefree Derek, you got the perky Ana Obregon, a feisty Oliva d'Abo and the causal air of George Kennedy. Quite a clumsy, camped-up soft-core romance fare.

"I had so many years of being so very proper. I had good-girl claustrophobia."

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.

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. (**)