Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)I do love films of this genre just as much as I abhorr pornographic films - this genre, when well done, is for a man of my tastes the most stimulating thing there is. But this film? My my, what a botched thing.
Plot: Interesting, leands itself to all manner of good scenes and fantasies. But a good story is wasted here because of the following: Photography: Flat, unimaginative, unerotic, visually not appealing. No talent there. Editing: Same as photography. Lighting: Harsh, reminds of zero-budget porn-film lighting. Set: Presumably paper-machée in a small studio. The negative quality increased by lousy lighting. Actors: OK acting but with few exceptions all are fast approaching or above middle age, especially the leads, with the appropriate wrinkles not hidden by make-up, lighting or photography but plainly visible. People, this is fantasyland, OK? Not real life drama. Video-to-DVD transfer: Good on a small screen TV (14") but terrible on 32". On the 32" screen it looks like a third generation VHS tape was used for a direct transfer. Disastrous. Budget: Presumably none. Rating: It says Director's Cut on my disk. I thought that meant a touch more explicit than PG 13. I was wrong. There is no frontal nudity. In fact, at times you are surprised to learn that people's physique actually does extend below the waist. So how is the R-rated version?
Click Here to see more reviews about: Diary of Lust (1999)
0 comments:
Post a Comment