Musicianmagic

The story is a brother, sister & the brother's fiancée travel to the home left to them after the father died. The father has a bottle collection with one particular called "The bottle of hopelessness." That bottle originally contained a note from another brother & sister (not related to the first set), marooned on an island that committed incest and seemed to entice the other brother & sister closer.

The story is actually very interesting. The bottle plays an important role throughout the movie. Well thought out script. The acting was alright but the actress that played the sister didn't look anything like the actor playing the brother. The actresses that played the girlfriend & sister on the island looked closer. Just something I kept thinking while watching.

As for the sex. This is a Nikkatsu Roman X film. Roman X was a line of films in the 1980's to compete with Adult Videos (Japanese porn) coming out, supposedly to contain unsimulated sex. Most of the sex here looked like probably simulated/fake. Or at the least you couldn't see anything as the Japanese censorship of the time was in effect. Some others films did contain real unsimulated sex like Daydream from 1981 and Woman In the Box: Virgin Sacrifice although mosaics & fogging prevented anything explicit being shown.

There are more than the normal number of sex scenes for a Pink Eiga but I didn't think they were all that exciting. So I wouldn't recommend this film to watch for the sex if that's important to you tho they are a part of the story itself.

Still I did enjoy the movie as a whole.

This starts out with the normal, wife feels like the husband is cheating on her story. Then it just becomes stupid and you are expected to forget most of what you just watched. Then it gets even more stupid.

The acting was just okay. Amanda Seyfried maybe the best but nothing outstanding. The story or more specifically the characters just stopped making much sense. Although the character Chloe never really did from the start. Just not a real-world character. I won't give any spoilers but the script all of a sudden tells you to forget most of what you watched earlier in this movie. Then I just wasted well over an hour!

One weird point. Julianne Moore is seen topless several times. Even at least once when it was unnecessary. But Amanda Seyfried avoided showing anything except from a distance or an obscured view. Just weird by its conspicuousness.

So I wasted an hour and a half in total. If you don't want to waste your time I suggest you find another movie to watch.

I have several problems with this documentary/show. First, The interviews seemed to be uncurated. One that really bothered me is where someone is telling how Yoko Ono was oh so concerned for Julian Lennon after his father's death. But It is well-known how poorly she treated Julian, including being turned away afterwards, not being given any of John's possessions that meant something to him (he had to purchase an old personal letter at auction) & ended up having to sue Yoko which took 16 years to settle.

Second, there are numerous clips of people talking but they only identify them once if at all. So when those people appear in later clips I have no idea who they are and have no reference from what experience with John Lennon they had.

Third, for a documentary on, in part someone's life there was a lack of specifics except about the murder itself. Should have been more on John Lennon's life.

There are better movies on John Lennon's life. I'd recommend "Imagine: John Lennon"