Look, I'll give it to you straight: if you are thinking of watching this movie, chances are it's because you are a big David Hamilton fan. And if you are a big David Hamilton fan, chances are it's because you like looking at pubescent girls who also happen to be naked. If that's what you're looking for, this movie's got 'em in abundance. The title character is, conveniently, a ballerina, who conveniently showers for with the other sylphlike creatures in her ballet class. (The gaggle of girls is credited as "The Hamilton Girls", I believe. Just like the Goldwyn Girls!) Also, the scene at the end, in which Laura and the sculptor finally get it on, is not graphic, but it's quite hot. Nymphsploitation galore. Hotcha.
Other than that-- the acting is nonexistent, the film is paced like a still photograph, and the title character only stops resembling plywood when she has her clothes off. And the script, aside from its stilted dialogue, ends up incorporating just about every cliché there is about the sexual awakening of young girls. You can tell that Hamilton doesn't really understand those pretty little creatures he loves to photograph, nor does he care to.
This irresponsible lack of connection to reality is what bugged me the most about this movie. I think it makes it come across as a lot sleazier than it needs to me. Read the little captions and epigraphs in a book of David Hamilton photos, and you'll know what I mean. Stay behind the camera and shut up, Mr. H; we don't want to know what you're thinking.
I wouldn't say, though, that the movie is perverted. I think that pubescent girls are pretty interesting, actually, and I think that the attraction they hold for certain grown men is an interesting subject that ought to be intelligently explored without veering off into Never- Never Land (or, for that matter, getting up in arms about evil child-molesting men). David Hamilton seems to have filmed this entire movie on location in Never-Never Land, so the value of this film is severely limited. If you're seriously interested in this stuff, you're much better off watching Kubrick's "Lolita", which is brilliantly written, brilliantly acted, and (intentionally) funny.
Other than that-- the acting is nonexistent, the film is paced like a still photograph, and the title character only stops resembling plywood when she has her clothes off. And the script, aside from its stilted dialogue, ends up incorporating just about every cliché there is about the sexual awakening of young girls. You can tell that Hamilton doesn't really understand those pretty little creatures he loves to photograph, nor does he care to.
This irresponsible lack of connection to reality is what bugged me the most about this movie. I think it makes it come across as a lot sleazier than it needs to me. Read the little captions and epigraphs in a book of David Hamilton photos, and you'll know what I mean. Stay behind the camera and shut up, Mr. H; we don't want to know what you're thinking.
I wouldn't say, though, that the movie is perverted. I think that pubescent girls are pretty interesting, actually, and I think that the attraction they hold for certain grown men is an interesting subject that ought to be intelligently explored without veering off into Never- Never Land (or, for that matter, getting up in arms about evil child-molesting men). David Hamilton seems to have filmed this entire movie on location in Never-Never Land, so the value of this film is severely limited. If you're seriously interested in this stuff, you're much better off watching Kubrick's "Lolita", which is brilliantly written, brilliantly acted, and (intentionally) funny.