that an over-the-top book about master/slave relationships could become so....dull.
the photography is nice, and the costumes and plot are faithful to the book, but the actors are totally inert. the constant droning voice-over drained whatever other energy might have been generated by the story. if anything, the film is *too* faithful to the book, there's no effort put into translating it to cinema.
yawn!
Yes, I would have to regretably agree, to some extent anyhow.
What's sort of funny is that...well, I did get to see this thing in an (OMG!) theatre, when it was in (OMG!) first run, and I remember that experience as, well, anything but dull.
But upon revisiting, yes, it does now strike me as fairly dull, for the most part. A few snippets, here and there, hint at a higher potential, but yes...on the whole, fairly dull.
Much ado about, well, not much.
Apparently, dogs are wolves with Williams-Beuren Syndrome.
yes, seeing it in a theater with other people back in the day would have been an entirely different experience. i saw "the exorcist" again not too long ago and spent most of the time wondering why i thought it was so scary when i saw it originally. what was once groundbreaking is now commonplace.
the more i think about it, the more i think "story of o" might work better as a silent film. anything to get rid of the numbing voiceovers and dreadful dialog!
I thought it was a great movie . it had a few minor flaws but overal it's awsome especially when ya consider the subject matter. A movie about a happy proud submissive woman that likes being a slave. I mean come on movies like that dont come around to often.
shareloved the concept, hated hated hated the execution. considering that this was a very faithful adaptation of the book, the book is a million times better because the acting is horribly inert.
sharehehe my biggest problem with the movie was sir stephan he was like 30 years older than her and (in my opinion) a wimpy looking guy, then to top it all off he dressed exactly like pee wee herman with a grey suit and a red bow tie. even when I saw this movie in the theaters back in 76 I busted up laughing when he first showed up.
shareheh - well, there is that too!
the age difference didn't bother me, but the bow tie was a bit much. at least sir stephen had two different expressions - stern and neutral. rene only had one, he could have been played with more heart by a wax figure.
Without disagreeing with what you say in essence, I don't think that it was seeing in with other people that made it different.
I suspect that it was a question of seeing something that was intended to be, shall we say, subversively erotic (kinky?) at a time when the concept of what could and might be depicted in a fairly broadly distributed and exhibited movie was changing so fast as to seem amazing by today's standards. Contemplate, for a moment, the difference between a 1965 movie and a 1975 movie...
Not too mention, I was much, much closer to puberty, and much, much less jaded, than I am now.
Apparently, dogs are wolves with Williams-Beuren Syndrome.
Actually, it would be nice to see a romance where the entire story is told visually but with only the sound effects being audible.
share