Saturday, March 29, 2014

447. Hold Me While I'm Naked

Hold Me While I'm Naked
1965
Directed by George Kuchar









There are some movies that leave absolutely no impression on me when I watch them.  I actually expected to hate this film while simultaneously being offended and disturbed by the images.  In truth, it really didn't get that much of a reaction from me, which was probably due to its extremely short running time.

A film director is making a porno in his mother's house.  As if that is not embarrassing enough, his main star quits.  Oh no!  Now he is a failure.

I am really not sure what the point of having this movie on The List was, unless the list makers were just really impressed by the last line: "there's a lot of things in life worth living for...isn't there?"  Really?  Are our standards this low now?

Overall, this movie sucked...didn't it?  Yes, it did.

RATING: *----

Interesting Facts:

Available on YouTube:

10 comments:

  1. I remember watching this one a while back and I had a similar reaction. I have no idea why this one was put on the list.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I had to go back to Youtube and re watch, because I couldn't remember watching it.
    OK, I knew I had.. (sorry, but with a title like that..) but I had somehow erased the actual film from my memory.
    So, gee thanks a bunch for having to sit through that again...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is true for so many of these movies! That's why I need my blog so I can remember even the most forgettable movies.

      Delete
  3. I'd forgotten I'd watched this too! Ah memories. Forgettable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't believe it.. only a year after watching it again.. I cannot for the life of me recall any section, scene or general drift about this one... That's bad.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I completely forget about this one too. Yi-ikes. I hope there is not a quiz!

    ReplyDelete
  6. All these experimental movies does make you insensitive to them no? This one left me cold as well. nothing much to get me interested.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't particularly mind this, but it does get me thinking...

    The book is pretty good at being representative of films from all around the world. So why are there so very many New York sixties art short films included? Did no one else in the world - or even America - make arthouse shorts?

    And if arthouse shorts meet the criteria to be included in a book of "movies" (a word which has connotations of cinemas etc, as opposed to "films" which is a word with a more general context), then why are animated shorts which got shown in cinemas and won Oscars all excluded?

    ReplyDelete
  8. My older posts are still being displayed a 'unknown'.. (I mention that to reclaim my intellectual property and associated praise / blame for them)
    ... But for the severalth time ... No, sorry, no memory of any part of this film at all.... and it seems i'm not alone ...

    ReplyDelete