Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Michael Ledo In the year 1971 (not 2000) Marguerite Gautier (Danièle Gaubert) is a drug using party girl who lives in the manor of the Duke in Rome. Young rich son of a businessman Armand Duval (Nino Castelnuovo) becomes infatuated with her and is warned about her. His friend has other recommendations (I would have taken the young red-haired girl) but Armand is set on breaking his heart and his own destruction. The two indeed hook-up, but Marguerite (not named Camille) has other lovers.I liked the retro style. No cell phones, mini skirts, mirrors everywhere, and clear plastic air filled furniture being sheik, but not really practical with all those indoor smokers. Looks like lava lamps and black light posters were for us poor slobs and Peter Fonda films.As a drama/romance it was pretty much the pits. The acting wasn't there. The plot was not convincing and if the women didn't run around naked/half naked I would have never watched it. BTW more nudity in the outtakes. The restoration was a B+ to A-. There were a few scenes where you could see the age of the film. If you look at the bonus material and trailers, you get a good idea about the original condition.Guide: sex and nudity. Not much swearing. Inspired by Dumas' ""The Lady of the Camellias"

trashgang I saw this flick due being released on the Arrow label. i do know that it was made i the roaring sixties, a time of drugs and free sex. And let this be a flick about forbidden romance.They way it was shot I was rather surprised that some dare to call it soft erotic. Sure, there's a lot of making love going on but it's so tame for the time being shot. The girls are really lovely and all are voluptuous and that's what this all about, all showing their juggs on some LSD music. Let me say that the score is excellent but the erotic, well, for example, in the first love scene you can easily spot on the Blu ray release that the girl was wearing flesh coloured knickers not to reveal a thing. No pubic hair is ever shown. On the men site they show almost everything not intended but you know, you can't hide their testicles. It's a classic for so many people and I can agree on many ways, the way the love scene's are shot with mirrors used that all looks fine but to say it's erotic, well, there are other flicks made back then showing more then Carmilla did. Just look at the orgy going on, a bit of master and slave but low on nudity. Go figure out that not one year later Mona was released, the first explicit flick without credits to start the golden age of porn. A perfect example of the free sex era.Gore 0/5 Nudity 2/5 Effects 0/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5

jrrylpz1 I first heard about this film through its music. The late Piero Piccioni was one of Italy's finest composers from the hey day of Italian cinema in the 60's and 70's.The write up for this movie descibes it solely in terms of sex and eroticism... but it so, so much more. It is like a wonderful painting depicting the heart wrenching trials and tribulations of two lovers, who spend a great deal of time hiding from the truth. Daniele Gaubert is superb in this, and you almost fall in love with her yourself (she, like her on screen persona, also had a tragic early death at the age of 44, from cancer). I am not a big fan of Metzger but this one is a must for all fans of lush 60's cinema.It is how the 60's (the none 'Hippies' anyway) would like to be remembered.... ultra stylish, hedonisitic, with the heartache of love lost. (Let us pray Hollywood leaves this film be and not 'create' one of their awful remakes)

Marvin-23 I saw this movie on television and from what I saw is was a huge orgy. There were a lot of love scenes and the movie really did not seem to tie it together. The love scenes were not needed in an otherwise good movie.