Customer Reviews

Sex at 24 Frames per Second

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Considering some of the reviews provided for this film, one would think that it is just some type of rip-off. I found the film to be very interesting and informative. It hits all the right tones in dealing with the Hollywood's love/hate relationship with sex within the context of film. Starting with "Ectasy" and discussing changes, sometimes radical, the film investigates the role of sex within film juxtaposed against the contemporary mores of different eras. Yes, there are quite a deal of interviews as well as a huge number of clips demonstrating the particular points made by the interviewees. Hugh Hefner, Sharon Stone, Ang Lee, Jane Russell, all make appearances discussing the energy and forces which account for the use of sex and nudity in movies. While this film is not a Ken Burns epic the viewer will certainly come away from the expeirence with a better understanding of the art form which has attempted throughout the years to portray sex, and all its deviations, as the most vexing of all human desires and needs. Recommended highly.

Reading some of the other reviews you might not think this is one of the best written, best edited and best produced documentaries on the subject of Sex in American cinema -- but it is. Quality of images and sound is first rate. Many rare and classic clips, outtakes (from Marilyn Monroe's nude swim in "Something's Gotta Give") and lots, and lots of rarities. (Charlton Heston explaining the ratings system is a howl!) Interviews abound with no less than Paul Verhoeven and Adrian Lyne. Emphasis is on US films and contemporary cinema, but the subject is a mammoth one for a 98 minute doc. A very, classy and tasteful treatment of a very controversial subject. Well worth buying.

I got this DVD because I was led to believe that it would focus not only on the films of today and recent history, but also on those classic films from the silents to the sixties. I was looking forward to learning more about stars like Jean Harlow, Rudolph Valentino, and Marilyn Monroe. They must have talked about Harlow and Valentino for a total of four minutes, and didn't focus on Marilyn as much as I had expected. Also, where was Clara Bow? There was more discussion devoted to vampire erotica films than to the brilliantly sexual stars and films of the past.
All in all, I think this documentary was just a sorry excuse to show porno clips.

Based on the dvd description, it must be emphasized that this dvd deals with AMERICAN cinema, which is nowhere near as controversial or explicit as European films. Paul Verhoeven makes cereal commercials compared to most non-US erotica. I can understand waving the flag for American products, but to those of us who have come to recognize what a soft, puritanical society we have and how tame our "controversial" films really are, this is a joke. The best American erotica--I'm talking non-porn--will not be found coming out of Hollywood's major studios. Instead, our "B" movies are the best we can do to come even close to the TRUE greats of cinematic sex, yet the dvd appears to focus on big-budget Hollywood tripe. Now, I'm talking T & A as the be all/end all here, which I deem it is safe to assume this dvd is glorifying.
Perhaps as a historical documentary of American skinflicks it succeeds, but if it really lived up to the claim of having the "hottest moments in the history of film", there simply would not be room left to mention American films once all the real sex classics were covered. Sure, Sharon Stone's "upskirt" in Basic Instinct was nice, but you can see that sort of thing for much lengthier duration in any number of 70's Italian films. And with arguably better looking women (not that she isn't pretty, but you get the point).
It's strange, because in Playboy's "Sex in Cinema" articles they typically give props (the first time I've ever used that term, but it seems appropriate, no?) to non-US erotica. This means that they are certainly aware of the value of those films, yet here they choose not to promote them. Too bad, because Playboy is in a great position to turn people on to truly controversial films and shake up their lives a little. I thought that was what the magazine was started for in the first place: to give new perspective.
Ultimately, I'm only going by the dvd description and may be proven wrong by a viewer. I really hope that I am.

REALLY DISAPPOINTING. I BOUGHT IT BECAUSE THEY LEAD ME TO BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT DIANE LANE OR DIANE LANE HAD A BIG PART OF THE MOVIE AND SHE WAS ON SCREEN FOR MAYBE 2 MINS

The film is a must-see if you ever wondered why you there is pretty much none. It is a good history of sex in movies, mostly Hollywood. Somewhat depressing as it shows there is not much hope here...

The film is Unrated just because if it was to be rated it should be PG-13. Just for example there is a lot of talking about the Sharon Stone scene, but the scene itself isn't!

I recently purchased what I thought was the "unrated version" (with the nude Marilyn Monroe image from "Something's Got to Give" on the box cover as opposed to "The Seven Year Itch" skirt blowing scene on the R rated version. The box lists the running time as 101 minutes, yet the DVD is only 98 minutes long. Can someome please clear up this mystery for me? Which one is which and what is the correct running time? Thank you.