Theater employees were saying at some screenings, about a third of the audience would walk out during the first half of the movie, asking for a refund.

Critics didn't like it either.

I think BOLERO deserves to be re-evaluated... seen with a different set of expectations. It's actually a beautifully photographed, beautifully scored, and at times intentionally funny romantic movie. It's a film I revisit every few years, and last night I found it both funny and very sweet.

I've always liked Bo Derek, though, and I think John Derek was very skilled behind the camera.

If any of your saw BOLERO in the theater, I'd enjoy hearing about it... whether you liked it, were bored by it, walked out of it, laughed all the way through it... BOLERO in the theater stories never fail to entertain me.

[Link]

I did get the Playboy with Bo on the cover and a pictorial for Bolero shot by Derek. John Derek had also photographed Ursula Andress and Linda Evans for Playboy. Anyone else?

I knew to stay away from Bolero because my Dad and his best buddy had seen John Derek's Tarzan, the Ape Man (1981) and said it was really awful. The Leonard Maltin Guide's review says they debated about giving the film a rating worse than its lowest B0MB rating. That's pretty bad.

That same guide gives Bolero a B0MB. Looks like it might be something as simple as that there are not enough Bo fuck scenes lurking in that 104 minutes.

T0MBOne

[Link]

I think the R rating for the home video releases could have been negotiated with the MPAA an notoriously political and inconsistent organization.

Also compared to modern hardcore Bolero's softcore sex and the passage of time may have rendered it quaint.

Edited by - BlackSix on 10/1/2020 2:23:01 AM

[Link]

(Look fast for Brigitte Lahaie's cameo in that film)

Many films went released without that new rating because it usually was bad for box office receipts if you could not land an R rating.

tb

[Link]

Edited by - BlackSix on 10/3/2020 3:36:17 AM

[Link]

Even though Roger Ebert advocated for the new rating to be called 'A' for adult, 'NC-17' was instead what the MPAA decided on to give to movies that went beyond what we would see in an 'R' rated film.

'NC-17' did not really solve the "problem" that movie companies had. It's still common practice for a movie to be edited if it's given an 'NC-17," to the more advertising-friendly 'R' rating. Movie companies had hoped an 'A' rating or an 'NC-17' rating would allow for adult-fare to be released in mainstream theaters, but most 'NC-17' movies I have seen have been in independent movie houses and art movie houses.

Edited by - escapade on 10/2/2020 8:40:58 AM

Edited by - escapade on 10/10/2020 11:46:18 PM

[Link]

Edited by - escapade on 10/2/2020 2:19:29 AM

[Link]

Calling the MPAA notoriously political and inconsistent is right on the money. If negotiations with them took place... I would have loved to have heard them. I will likely never know the precise reasons behind the later 'R' rating.

To return to "inconsistent".... yes. Even though Bolero looks quaint, movies that came out at the same time, as well as movies these days, still get an 'NC-17' for scenes that look very similar to those in Bolero.

It's kind of funny how offensive I find the later 'R' rating for Bolero. I guess it's because my parents allowed me to watch the VHS when it was still unrated, when I was younger than 17, and I was so pleased with them for trusting me to view the film in a mature manner.

[Link]