atticseethr
So, I wanted to know what the fuss is about. Nothing. I give it two stars for the music, and one quote. "I am homesick for a place I've never been". It is art, but watered down. It should be lost again.From there it just gets more pretentious, and melancholic. Experimental film? I don't know. Much of the muse is just schitzo. I was neither offended, nor turned on by the nudity. Bored is the word.At the start, I thought it was a metaphor. Youth, innocence, and strength embrace nature as they conquer the water. Diving deep into the waters of self-discovery, and coming of age...all that tired stuff. Nope, turns out I smoked too much weed. I can see why it was on the shelf so long. It sucks. Also, sadly people get turned on by watching what was tedious. I was never taught shame I guess. Besides, I've watched many genre of film, and nudity does not shock me(except Basic Instinct). We are all supposed to be mature about these things. This movie was pretty overkill.I may be naive, but I want to believe there was art in the heart of the director, and this was not made to exploit children. If it were meant to exploit, I hope it puts those pedos to sleep.
Jeff
I'll forgive any movie for being low-budget, but it ought to at least have some semblance of plot or even a point. This movie is devoid of either. It's as painful to watch as your aunt's home movies, and probably filmed on the same 8mm camera. When there is any dialog that is discernible (and most of it is narrative), it has no comprehendible context. The location of the filming is obviously a nice spot, but even the awful camera work fails to display it. We have no way of knowing if any of the good-looking boys in the film can act, because they have no script at all to work with, and likely little direction. If its the boys you want to see, skip the movie and download some screen captures.
reformer5
This movie is worth seeing if you like to watch films about boys. However, I've fast-forwarded many parts that were pretty trivial. The sensual parts of young male nudity seem to be well compensated by little adventures that the boys have, although the adventures seem uninteresting. If you're someone who wants a well-thought-out plot and more action, you probably don't want need to waste your time on this film. After saying all this, however, there does seem to be an overarching plot that is not too imposing on the general subject at hand, which is simply to show the boys as they are. Interestingly, the viewer may be just as confused as the boy actors are about the main reason for their activities.
Sorof
Its amazing that a movie like this was ever made in prudish America, although one has to exclude the 60's and 70's from that label. The boys in the movies (ages 10-16) are completely nude for many scenes, and make no attempt to hide any frontal nudity. While it is unusual for boys of this age to show any nudity in American films, European films regularly show situational nudity of all ages. It would be nice to see American film-makers, and the general public relax with nudity in films (and in general), which somehow always gets related to sex (thanks to religious paranoia). There are no sexual innuendos in this film at all, and it is basically no different than watching a European nudist film, albeit there is at least an attempt at a plot here. Hard to find film, but still available through some distributors. The "leader" in the film (Peter Glawson) starred in another film (Peter & the Desert Riders) around the same time, but that film is almost non-existent.
AD
