Sorry, this movie sucks

Don't listen to the negative reviews

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

David Hamilton may have made his name as a photographer but Laura leaves his writing and directing abilities with a lot of question marks. The plot and characterisations have holes that you could drive an army through.When Paul asks if Laura would pose for his new sculpture Sarah refuses so why does she then say that she will take photos of a naked Laura for Paul to use? It's as if she is saying, "No, Mr Wyler, Laura will not pose naked but I will take lots of photos of Laura in erotic poses so that you can ogle her young naked body at your leisure." This is surely not the action of a responsible parent, especially as she knows him well enough not to let Laura anywhere near him. This is evident at a party given by Paul. Sarah, her husband Richard and Laura are invited to the party but Laura is left at home. There are other unanswered questions such as what did the woman at the party want to talk to Paul about and why was Paul allowed access to the ballet school? There is more but it would take too long to go into it all here.As this is an erotic film centred around art, there is obviously a certain amount of nudity. David Hamilton shows his photographic background by having the ballet students adopting various poses and so looking like living tableaux. There was too much use of fade-to-black and the permanent soft-focus was annoying. This film does not warrant more than 2 stars.

Sometimes a movie can be merely about its images, like this one. The story can be about the images too.I was very impressed with the way vignettes were composed. Rather lovely, most of them except for the annoying fade to black at the end of each and every one. To appreciate this, or rather to not be offended, I suppose you have to accept that the female form is appealing, and accept that a young girl can initiate an affair with an older man.Besides the appeal of the balletgirls and the way they are displayed, there's the story.It isn't much of one, surely insufficient for most commentors, and the fact that it is so slight seems to rile them a bit, as indication that the nudity was all that mattered.But the elements of the story that do exist are what I call "folding." Usually the purpose of folding is to place the viewer in the movie, and that's the case here.We have an artist in the writer/director who represents young girls in the nude. He and we have a surrogate on-screen, in a character who is an artist (a sculptor) and represents young girls in the nude. The titular Laura is a dancer, inviting viewers.So far, the fold is ordinary. By the thinnest of plot devices, our sculptor goes blind after starting a sculpture of Laura. So she offers to be the model, allowing him to caress her on every part, sufficiently to make a clay copy, which he similarly caresses. She, meanwhile has a crush on him and seduces him during this process.See the fold? We not only get to look but touch, and that touch is returned.No, ma'am that's not a slight story. No, not at all.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I agree more or less with all the comments sent so far. This might be surprising, because they seem to be so different. But they are sent from different points of view, and if you try to make a resume, you'll see how it all fits well. Let's make an example: "Glengarry Glen Ross" (or some similar indoor drama) can be described as perfect deep (by drama lovers) or terribly unwatchable slow boring movie (by action lovers); great example how a masterpiece can be made without a single female role (artistic purist statement), or a glorifying men in business and so neglecting women (a feminist statement) or even a pointless flick with no chicks to look at (a macho statement); a movie where authors bravely use words that people use in reality, or a blasphemy with an obscene language that would fit only in NC-17 movie.I admire and adore Hamilton's work as a photograph. But, yes, being a genius in one art doesn't automatically mean you can make masterpieces in other arts (Barbara Streissand is an exemption). Some great movie photographers made movies (like Nykvist), but they learned job with people like Tarkovsky. Hamilton made only still pictures, and this is what he does best. I think making movies was not a bad idea, but he should have made them as a photographer and leave directing to a professional. Then he could have avoided some real mistakes described in earlier comments. But I wouldn't be too strict. If you don't expect too much his movies won't disappoint you. Of course, if you don't accept nudity, this is not a movie for you, but such audience knows they should avoid Hamilton's work in general. People who believe showing nude young bodies is a sin are entitled to their opinions; but if you believe such a movie could induce child molestation, you should also ban all crime movies, thrillers (not to mention horrors), movies where people smoke, eat fast food, hurt each other in any way, appear in dangerous situations (most adventure movies from Tom Sawyer and Tarzan to Indiana Jones) etc. - such behaving can also be imitated, even more dangerously (there is no violence in Hamilton's movies!). And a man who can't tell reality from a movie is a psychopath who will cross the line of crime sooner or later regardless the movies he watches.Back to Laura and Hamilton. In Laura he made probably his most beautiful scenes, like Laura going out from the sea, and the opening sequences are his typical. And the scene some don't like, some find controversial, when Laura dances and her mother takes pictures, is a real homage to photography as art. It is an artist-model and not a mother-daughter relation. With a photo (or pencil, or canvas) in his hand an artist leaves his real world, stops being a member of family, race, nation, he creates a new world. Here Hamilton gives us a short lesson of making photos, feeling the light (Hamilton's strongest tool), lines, movements. If a picture paints a thousand words this scene saves a million words if you want to make a documentary about Hamilton himself. And this is where I agree with some of earlier comments, his work talks enough, he should stay behind camera. No words. Less directing.A film, though with weak script and much too big oscillations in directing, was saved by great acting and again (like in Bilitis) by perfect music. For Hamilton fans - don't expect "La Dance" or "Dreams of a Young Girl", but you'll like it. The others, if not too easily offended, probably won't turn the TV off, but it's also very likely they won't remember it too long.

Laura, Les Ombres De L'eteDavid Hamilton does a great job expressing his seeming obsession with pre-pubescent ballet dancers in Laura, Les Ombres De L'ete. Possibly one of the worst (and most boring) "art house" pictures ever made, professional photographer/amateur filmmaker Hamilton drowns in his excessive use of soft focus, pseudo-artistic fadeouts, and nudity, devices employed to make up for the shallow plot.After seeing teenaged Laura (Dawn Dunlap) at ballet class, sculptor Paul Thomas Wyler (James Mitchell) knows that he must sculpt this beautiful little girl, just as he had done with her mother Sarah (Maud Adams) 20 or so years prior. But Sarah can see through his superficial intentions and tries her best to keep her very curious daughter from posing for this oh-so-artistic womanizer.Laura contains several sequences of excessive nudity (mostly of young Dunlap) and there is no doubt that Hamilton's subjects are quite attractive; in fact, the photo-shoot scenes, with Sarah taking endless pictures of her naked daugher prancing around (including a few gymnastic poses), are certainly provocative. But like Hamilton's other exploitative French productions, the story is built around these sequences and without them there is little else to interest the viewer. The film comes across as heavy-handed, pretentious, and, ultimately, empty. Some termed this soft-core when it was released but the film simply isn't graphic enough to qualify for the category. -- David Ross Smith