Picture of Beauty

This movie is full of beautiful shots, interesting set dressing and beautiful girls. Lots of eye candy. It's really unfortunate that it has a terrible script and some rather poor acting. Some of the actors are passable, but others can't speak a single line convincingly. Also I have to disagree with another reviewer about this, it does not project the period very well at all. The early 20th century had women who wore layers of underwear and foundation garments. You would never see a woman in public in the nigh-diaphanous little nothings the leading lady favored.

All that being said, this film is a forgettable little bit of inoffensive fun, but with a stronger script and better acting it would look a lot less like a high school play.

... if you're looking for a film that shows an artist capturing naked tableaux of pretty girls - although several of the painting scenes (and outdoor shots) look very much like similar settings to that film. Also, although this film *does* attempt a (literal) framing device and backstory for the action, it's fairly thin fare by comparison. And the ending is pretty pathetic as a result.

As someone else has noted, this is a lot less lesbian-oriented than the marketing would imply, but the cinematography isn't that bad, most of the core cast are fairly attractive and look like they could also act if given better material.

Just bad porn, slow rhithm, non sense scenes, bad picture frame and equilibrum of image, if want to see porn, better go to see clasic pizza guy or pool cleaner, had better plot and dialogs

I mean am I supposed to be mad at the movie? Can it be actually really called that at all though? If you are into beautiful women being naked most of the running time and having ... "fun" with each other or some lucky men ... yeah ok so you could go to other places and find more of what you are looking for. Because while this is borderline hardcore, it only crosses the line occasionally.

Now I mentioned the females but you will see a lot of male nudity in this too. Maybe you are into that (that is beyond me, but it is what it is) - and yes by that I mean the private parts too! So while I thought this would be an artful movie (I guess the painiting at least can be considered that), it probably will not feel like that at all ... I wouldn't know what it feels like to be honest.

The cover pic for this DVD would indicate that this is an erotic girl/girl film, but that's basically a trick from the marketing people to get you interested in watching this dud, as there's really nothing even remotely lesbian about it. OK, I suppose there ARE a couple of brief encounters showing unclad young women in close proximity with other unclad women, but it's painfully obvious that the writer/director included these moments almost accidentally. This film's got an overall uninteresting storyline, and what little sex is included involves guys. But notice how they didn't show any guys on the cover pic? I guess that's because it's always hotter to pretend that your film is mostly about pretty naked girls! So why didn't they actually film it that way?