Too many fans seem to be blown away

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Film is still young enough for there to be credible arguments about just what it is.Its entirely possible for someone to believe it is about what photography is, what the majority of us think photography is.Here's a photographer, and he believes that. His photographs evoke remembrances of an innocent sexuality, false memories certainly but sweet smelling. There's a deliberate unreality in the photos, with girls in nearly surreal poses with the lens gauzed as if there were a barrier of sorts between our reality and that we see — or is it imagine?There's all sorts of implied narrative in these still photos. They are so, so very rich in what they imply.Now to film. I've seem "Laura," which was successful in a minor way because the artist dreaming about the new woman was placed in the story explicitly. Oh and he has vision problems, and he needs to translate his story by shifting senses (to touch) just as we do from photo to movie.This is his next project. I really don't know what he was thinking. Before he had sexual imaginings, here he simply has sex. Before he focused on a wonderful symmetry: our imaginations of a young girl balanced with her imaginings of an older man. I guess he thought he could work a similar symmetry here with a young boy instead of the older artist. But it fails in an extraordinarily large way.I think that is because in this case he invested too much in the story, the power of the story to carry the thing, and he drifted too far away from where he has power, the image. I think "Walkabout" successfully does what this attempts. Go there instead.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't "hang together," perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think "Lucky Julien!" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a "bad thing," all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label.

Most reviews say that this is the weakest point in Hamilton's short movie career. This movie is a bit different from the rest, and considering it the best or the worst depends on what you expect from a movie, and what you expect from Hamilton.Knowing Hamilton as a photographer, you can be slightly surprised. While Bilitis looks like his books in a movement with all those young girls discovering themselves and relations with each other on the edge of lesbian, with a plot connecting these scenes, Laura concentrates on few characters what enables developing relations among them (male-female, artist-model) but though we see beautiful photos, many of them better than his average, their number is reduced for the sake of the plot. Tendres cousines is different from both, it is only Hamilton's movie that looks more like a film than like a collection of moving photos. Because of that it can be acceptable to wider audience than Hamilton's fans, looking like an erotic comedy (but not German soft-core type - "Schulmädchen report" fans would be very disappointed). You won't laugh a lot, but you can smile (and that's something you don't often get from Hamilton). Unlike all other Hamilton's movies the age of female varies. Unlike other movies main character is a boy. Unlike his usual works this one isn't put out of place and out of time. We have characters that live their life, have their destiny and don't lead us only from one photo to another, from one nude girl to another.Unfortunately, Hamilton (again) gets lost with a script in his hands. Girls on beaches, under shower, in low-light rooms, in gardens, under tents, in front of mirrors, regardless of the amount of clothes - this is his territory, he can shoot minutes and hours, and whatever he does you'll always feel the artist's eye and hand behind it. But when he has to present us average everyday life he stops being Hamilton and becomes average director who just follows the script. Hamilton is best known for his nudes, but they are just a part of his work. And in Tendres cousines we have a reverse situation: his girls are not in the best shots. Nature, garden, house remind us on Hamilton's work (often neglected part of it), while girls, even when nude, don't have anything special in the way he presents us. Maybe Hamilton was confused having a boy in front of camera, maybe he was thinking about a line that censorship would accept, maybe he was really trying to make something new (and no one dared to tell him he shouldn't), but he neglected what he was mostly praised for.

What's wrong with this guy? As one reviewer elsewhere sarcastically suggested, Hamilton as a photographer at least, is such a legend in his own mind he thinks he is also a film director extraordinaire! This little work-out should have convinced even HIM to give it away!As always in a Hamilton epic...I mean soft-porn flick, young girls cavort around in uninhibited fashion (presumably they are well paid in this regard). THIS time however when all things even out, all they have left is a 14 year old boy (he looks it too). Is this guy lucky or what? still with such attention as comes his way (pardon the pun) he can at least finally "relate" to his own girlfriend.Gives new meaning to the term "Kissing Cousins"