Review of Laura

Laura (1979)
6/10
Better than the director's first, with better looking actresses and more plot
13 April 2024
Warning: Spoilers
"Laura" is quite a bit better than "Bilitis", the photographer-turned-filmmaker David Hamilton, for a few reasons. For one thing, it has a stronger sense of plot, which makes it more watchable and carries the movie past its boring bits. "Bilitis" was barely about anything. For another, the actresses are much better looking this time. Dawn Dunlap, who plays Laura, is beautiful. Patti D'Arbanville, who played "Bilitis", was not. Even the male lead is better looking this time.

The plot: the protagonist is a sculptor who shares his favourite subject with Hamilton: beautiful teenage girls in the nude. He reconnects with an old flame, and becomes infatuated with her fifteen-year-old daughter, Laura. He wants to sculpt her, but the mother is jealous and comes between them. For some reason she'll only allow him to use photos of the girl naked to sculpt from. Later on, however, the sculptor is blinded in a fire, and the movie has its climax when Laura allows the artist to run his hands over her nude body, so as to recreate this nubile terrain in stone.

"Laura" has a very similar structure to "Bilitis". It begins like a fly on the wall observing the dreamy, halcyon day-to-day life of a group of beautiful schoolgirls, of course showing them frolicking nude in the shower like "Bilitis" did. Regrettably, when the plot kicks in the movie largely leaves its gratuitous nudity behind, which is the same mistake that movie made. At least here, the plot is enough to carry the movie, and I found it more watchable than the director's first pic.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed