I love this movie so much

Fantastic!

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

I have read several technical critiques of this movie over the years, but it they all miss the mark for me, because this film provides something that very few films ever do - a gentle, poignant and tranquil approach into a world where the artistic, feminine and erotic merge in a manner that is generally well conceived and often breathtakingly beautiful.David Hamilton is first and foremost a fine art photographer, and whilst there may be cinematic errors here, the visual content of the film allows one to pause and consider the wonder of the female form. I am delighted to own a copy of this visual hymn to some of the most delightful aspects of human life.Howard Nowlan Fine Art Photographer, Cornwall, UK.

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.

I've often wondered why David Hamilton hasn't been arrested! The world's dirtiest old man - and he gets PAID for it! Considered soft-core pornography when released, Hamilton quickly sprang to his age-old defence.."But this art chaps!" It sure IS! Pre-pubescent wannabe ballet dancer Laura - she must be all of 14, stripping off, for her MOTHER for God's sakes! - and performing multiple er, dance moves? gymnastic workouts? whatever...for the camera....and most every other paedophile in the Western world! The "plotline" such that it isn't, has James Mitchell as sculptor Paul Wyler, obviously playing out Hamilton's own fantasies, who wants to sculpt Laura, as he did her mother (OCTOPUSSY Bond girl Maud Adams, can you believe?) 20 years earlier.All the Hamilton trademark shots - soft focus, young rear ends, girls drying each other off in the showers, skipping down the boardwalk, teenage nudity viewed every which way. God, no wonder I like this flick! Seriously folks...art house fodder? supposedly....but in the upshot, just sexploitation of very young girls - and ALL in the name of "art" he did it with BILITIS I'm SURE he did it here...pretty often too!