Sappho '68 (1968) Poster

(1968)

User Reviews

Review this title
2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
So-so soft-core outing from the prolific Nick Millard
Woodyanders29 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Small town girl Jennifer Bradley (striking statuesque blonde Janice Kelly) moves to San Francisco to eke out a successful career as a photographer. Jennifer soon finds herself caught up in the sexual revolution that's going on around her and becomes involved with lesbian model Belinda Frazier (smoldering brunette Myrna Lori) after her relationships with men prove to be dissatisfying.

While smut cinema titan Nick Millard delivers oodles of bare distaff skin and nicely captures the wild'n'easy carefree vibe of 60's Frisco (the Bob Dylan poster in Jennifer's apartment is an especially nifty touch), Millard alas lets the meandering narrative plod along at an often painfully sluggish pace and pads the tight 65 minute running time with a lot of tedious filler (the topless women boxing on stage at a funky nightclub and a protracted naked set piece utilizing extremely irritating strobe lights both go on for what seems like an agonizing eternity). The key problem with this picture is that the premise is too slight and monotonous to even properly sustain an hour long running time. Fortunately, both leads are smoking hot and thus prevent this flick from being a complete wash-out. Plus Millard warrants a few points for actually using sync sound in the last third instead of having his trademark wall-to-wall narration throughout. Passable at best.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A boring film documenting boring lesbians.
Captain_Couth24 September 2004
Sappho '68 (1968) is a black and white "adult" film following the lives of a couple of lesbians living in the big city. Strangely enough for a film made about lesbians and their "community", it's not that sexual. The low budget film making and crude direction made this one unpleasant and no fun. It's not an erotic film per say but more like an experimental one in the vein of Andy Warhol. As an erotic film it's neither fish nor fowl. I don't know why the filmmaker took an interesting subject and made a boring art film out of it.

The movie had potential but wasted it on trying to be something it's not.

Too bad.

Not recommended.

Don't be fooled by the cover, unless you really want to watch a wannabe Andy Warhol film.
15 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed