Laura (1979)

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

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.

This David Hamilton movie is something of a disaster. It has a half-decent story (coming-of-age/love triangle) and a mediocre script. All of Hamilton's usual trademarks are here - stunningly beautiful & innocent young girls, soft-focus photography, lots of nudity, gentle lesbianism, and a romantic soundtrack. There is/was a good movie to be made with the given material & cast, but this is not it. The editing is appalling, and at times the scene shifts seem somewhat disjointed.It's worth remembering that Hamilton was an iconic photographer of his time and experimented with taking his art into the movie field, in many ways pioneering the penchant for photographers in the adult industry to also dabble in video work.However, on the plus side, there are very good performances from Dawn Dunlap (as Laura) and James Mitchell (as Paul), and the soundtrack is quite nice.To summarise, I'd say that unless you're a fan of Hamilton's other work, e.g. Bilitis, Summer in St Tropez, then this is best forgotten.I rate it 4/10.

As a twenty-year-old woman, I could really appreciate David Hamilton's "Laura" for what it was. Not long ago, I was a girl of sixteen with a major crush on a man old enough to be my father. However, I also know that I am not unique in this aspect and it often happens as a young woman matures. The film is based on Laura, a sixteen-year-old ballet student, and her love for a forty-year-old sculptor. In the beginning of the film, we find that the sculptor, Paul, is having trouble finding inspiration. However, when he sees young Laura his woes are cured. There is a catch. Laura's mother was once Paul's lover, thus she is very protective of her daughter and somewhat jealous. When Paul asks if Laura can model for him, her mother agrees to take photos of her for him, but that is all. Thus, Laura must figure out how to deal with her awakening sexuality and her love for Paul.I felt that the film was rather tastefully done. What could have been crude was handeled with class. I admit that Dawn Dunlap, the actress playing Laura, looked young, however, I do believe that she was of age when the film was shot. Also, there are no explicit love scenes between Laura and Paul. There is a very erotic simulated scene, but that is the extent of it. However, I will say that there is a lot of young women bearing it all for the sake of art. All in all, I really enjoyed the film and was happy to find a used copy. I must also give kudos to Patrick Juvet's score! The music was quiet lovely, and I am considering ordering a used LP from the film.Regardless of what people say about Hamilton, I do think that this subject was handled with class and sophistication. However, that is just one person's humble opinion.

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.