Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Buffronioc One of the wrost movies I have ever seen

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

elcoat Still being ... at the age of 67 ... more than twice the age of my second (now ex-)wife, I can empathize with the film showcasing a man's attraction to young beauty, but there is a Dracula aura about this: a much older artist preying on the beauty of a young to the point of underage girl for his artistic renewal ... for his own rejuvenation ... to reproduce her only in stone ... but not to really, lovingly reproduce her with a baby.Also, I had remembered ... erroneously, apparently ... him re-seducing her mother as well, who was being ignored, if not discarded, by her profession-obsessed French husband.

Falconeer David Hamilton's "Laura" has got to be one of the most gorgeous erotic films of all time. The story of a young girl's sexual awakening is a rather simple one, and certainly more based on fantasy (more specifically, 'male fantasy') than reality. 15 year-old Laura (Dawn Dunlap) lives in a pastel world where everything is white, everyone is beautiful, and nothing is quite real. Laura develops a fascination with the much older Paul, a sculptor with an eye for a special kind of beauty. The conflict here, is that Paul is the former lover of Laura's mother Sara, (Maud Adams). Here develops a classic situation of mother/daughter competition. When Paul sees the beautiful Laura, he is smitten, at the girls beauty, and also at how she resembles Sara, at age 15. Sara's attempts to keep the two separate are not entirely successful. Filmed on the French Riviera, in soft focus style, by renowned photographer Hamilton, you can imagine the look of the film, if you are familiar with his work. It is strange, quiet, dreamlike, quite unlike anything i have seen before. Quite controversial too. Dawn Dunlap, who was not so much older than the character she played, is very graceful and nice to look at, and former Bond girl Maud Adams is incredibly beautiful in this one as well. Although the character of Paul, (James Mitchell) is supposed to be close to 50 years old, the relationship between him and Laura is not so hard to take, as he is also a very handsome guy, who looks nowhere near his age. Also worthy of mention is the lush, dreamlike soundtrack that accompanies these images. One scene that stands out is a dream sequence; Filmed in black & white, Laura is running through a maze of little streets and alleys, looking for Paul, but he continues to allude her. Very nicely done. Hamilton creates a kind of quiet suspense, as the viewer waits for the time when the two get together. While there is nudity in the film, it is all done with the utmost of taste and subtlety. One thing: I cannot stress how important it is when watching this film, that you see the original French language version. The English dubbing for this one is wretched, absolutely dire. It is not even proper English, but American English, and it totally destroys the feeling and tone of this very French film. I first saw it in English, and I didn't think too much of the film, as the visuals were great, but the voices and dialog were so bad. When i saw the French version, it was like another experience entirely. Usually i don't mind voice dubbing so much, but here it is intolerable. I think that a lot of reviewers here have only seen the easier to find English version, which might explain the films low rating. "Laura" is a very classy erotic film, in it's original French language.

przgzr 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.

uds3 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!