Velvet

Hey I don't write many reviews but I could see this has none so why not?

For some reason Amazon Prime recommended Velvet to me. Anyway, I am not going to rewrite the plot here but it is essentially about a nude woman thinking and hanging out in the coutryside. It's short and sweet. I think it was the colours of the film that I liked the most.

Naked woman constantly masturbating in the woods. Who would have thought this could be so boring? If you are looking for erotic cinema, which you might be if this is among your recommendations, there are many, many far better choices.

Nothing in this film is predictable. The star is lovely but not overly beautiful like many actors. The continual overdubbing is a bit annoying but for a lower budget film it makes sense. It's so far from a Hollywood production that I found it refreshing. I will look for more films starring this actress. I do wonder if it made its money back at the box office. There are a few "art house" theaters here in San Diego that might show this film but not too many average theaters would screen it. I did enjoy the dichotomy of current activity and fantasy as the protagonist wrote and daydreamed. The film's location is beautiful.

Like seriously? It's Almont nothing but watching a girl do.....stuff. There's a script to this, it's gotta me like three pages long. A few lines here, 40 minutes of literally nothing, a couple minutes of the girl "taking care of business" and few more lines, repeat. The camera work is terrible and can best be described as a poor attempt at an art project. Odd cuts, poor focusing, a lot of unnecessary camera panning and out of place "arsty" shots like focusing in and out on a house plant after watching the main actress just sitting there.

This movie is really nothing more than some amateur film maker's poor attempt to get a woman naked on screen (for nearly the entire film) and a wannabe actresses desperate attempt to get in a film. It's lazy softcover p...

Ruslanas Korostenskis' Velvet is an utter failure of storytelling, masquerading as arthouse cinema while delivering little more than softcore nonsense dressed in faux sophistication. Watching this film felt like sitting through a student project that mistook nudity and vague symbolism for depth and meaning.

The story-if you can even call it that-is barely there. Characters drift in and out of scenes like sleepwalkers, saying cryptic lines that lead nowhere and doing things that have no consequence. There's no plot to follow, no emotional arc, just a fog of meaningless visuals and prolonged, awkward sexual encounters. It feels less like a narrative and more like an excuse to string together scenes of nudity under the illusion of being edgy or avant-garde.

Let's be honest: Velvet doesn't feel like a movie made for thinking adults-it feels like something you'd find late at night on a shady cable channel. It's more porn than cinema, but without even the decency to be upfront about it. Instead, it hides behind slow shots and moody lighting, pretending to be profound.

Korostenskis seems more interested in shocking than saying anything substantial. Whatever artistic intentions might have existed are completely lost in the pretentious haze. Save yourself the time and skip this one-unless you enjoy watching confusion and boredom collide in a barely coherent, oversexualized mess.