Alicia I love this movie so much

ThiefHott Too much of everything

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Mats A bunch of young women showering, bathing, eating, swimming, and sleeping. Mostly naked or half-naked. Most scenes are so heavily contrasted that most of the time you cannot see the faces of the women. Add a very soft lens, no dialog whatsoever, and a synth creating some kind of muzak background to all the scenes and the result is one of the most boring films ever produced. At least in 2009 the DVD is very soft. Possilby in high resolution and without faded colors this could be some mood creating film. What kind of mood? Well, depends on you but maybe thinking back to your youth when you first started to watch beautiful women. I would much rather recommend the director's Tendres cousins, which has a funny storyline, in addition to beautiful women.

huh_oh_i_c This film shows that, even with the best of backdrops, the most romantic scenery and the most beautiful girls, it is perfectly possible to make an extremely boring film. I like pretty girls as much as anybody, but this film has turned me completely off girls. In fact, I think I might try that gay thing now. For several hours after watching this absolute dog of a movie, I went limp! It just was that bad. I really imagine that even for pedophiles this is a torture to watch.I thought this guy was supposed to be a photographer? DOESN'T HE KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH LIGHT? In the first part of the film, (which is supposed to introduce the characters) all the shots of the girls faces are in the dark or half shade. Now, I get what he was trying to do here, harsh direct light is not as beautiful as mysterious shade. BUT YOU HAVE TO GET IT RIGHT! This was technically speaking, the worst film I've seen in a long time. Even Youtube video is better than this. There are no close ups, and the half wide shots we get of the girls' faces are all in the dark or in the shade. You never get to see the girls. In fact, the FIRST close up we get that is sharp and well-lit, is of the GUY? What is THAT?! Is Hamilton actually gay? Or what? Was he on drugs when he made this?It is simply awful! Couldn't he have at least read ONE book about film making? A leaflet? For sure, you should have some sort of introduction of the characters, this is most effectively done with a wide-shot, half-wide shot, close-up sequence. In this way some sort of identification is possible. Here, not so much. Especially with girls that look so much a like, it's important to establish who is who and who did what, and with whom. This is completely ignored in this film.Another commenter said that this is his best film, because of the awful dialog in Bilitis and Tendre Cousins. This is a backhanded compliment if I ever saw one. The solution to bad dialog is not NO dialog, but better dialog. Get a writer?Okay, so films don't always need dialog, there are some very good dialog-less films made. Yet, 60 minutes completely without plot? Combined with this supermarket-music for airports? I watched this film in the morning, sitting on a straight backed hard chair in a cold apartment, drinking coffee. Yet I fell asleep 3 or 4 times, it was just that boring a movie. And yes, yes, there are plot-less films, which are quite good. And there are bad plot-less films. And there are plot-less films, which are really BAD. And then ... there is "Un été à Saint-Tropez".To paraphrase ol' Winston Churchill: Never has so LITTLE been accomplished with so MANY: so MANY devastatingly beautiful actresses and so MUCH breath-taking scenery. If only we had been able to see these actresses' faces properly! A body is not that interesting, the lack of face-time in this dog is what eventually seals it's fate.And while I don't know his money situation at the time, I really do think he should have been able to afford a good light crew. And who did he think he was fooling with that fake soundtrack?still rated five for casting.

Floydoid This is David Hamilton doing what he does best - filming a bevy of beautiful pubescent girls in romantic settings. In fact this is more like an extended music video as the soundtrack is quite excellent. The piece-de-resistance was working without any discernible dialogue and creating a dream-scape of girls on vacation in the south of France, most of the time wearing very flimsy outfits, or often, nothing at all.There is very little story line, just a few hints at Hamilton's well-trodden themes of coming-of-age/rites of passage, with some very touching gentle lesbian moments, and teen girls just being allowed to be teen girls.All in all this is an aural and visual treat. I rate it 9/10.

heckles ...for three reasons. One is that the girls involved seem a year or so older than usual, with the result that their bodies are more curved, and the film seems less like "child porn". Second, he uses the south of France for good advantage in this one.Finally, and most importantly, this is a dialog-less, almost plotless film. So one can gaze at the young, sun-lit European bodies without ever once being subjected to the howlingly awful lines that afflicted "Tendres Cousins" and "Bilitis" from opening titles to final credits.