"Tendres Cousines" has generally been placed into two categories in the past: sex comedy and those kinds of movies which are mainly about artsy cinematography. However, if it belongs in the first category, it is mostly boring, pretentious, dreary, and painfully unfunny (French movies usually fail to distinguish between cute and funny). If it belongs in the latter category, than the cinematography is a grainy mix of shots which resemble traditional paintings and also of downright ugly shots which could probably be attributed to the film´s low production values. However, the movie is notable for a different reason. While it only has about 9 sex scenes, about 4 involve Julien, the film´s 14 year old hero who actually looks 14 if not younger ! These tend to be relatively explicit, chock full of nudity and even hint at incest. Of course, the movie is probably intended to show a case of what can happen during puberty and what can lead adult or almost adult women (the women in the movie, by the way, are gorgeous) to have sex with a boy that young. Or, it could just be an attempt at a teenage "Emmanuelle". Nevertheless, it surprises me that this movie was not banned in the U.S. as child porn - not that it necessarily should be but Americans tend to be extremely sensitive to the problem of teen exploitation . All in all, "Tendres Cousines" is a weird and somewhat twisted little movie. Pedophiles and people who think that French people can do no wrong should love it.
9 Reviews
At least Hamilton gives us a bit of teenage male nudity this time!
uds35 July 2002
What's wrong with this guy? As one reviewer elsewhere sarcastically suggested, Hamilton as a photographer at least, is such a legend in his own mind he thinks he is also a film director extraordinaire! This little work-out should have convinced even HIM to give it away!
As always in a Hamilton epic...I mean soft-porn flick, young girls cavort around in uninhibited fashion (presumably they are well paid in this regard). THIS time however when all things even out, all they have left is a 14 year old boy (he looks it too). Is this guy lucky or what? still with such attention as comes his way (pardon the pun) he can at least finally "relate" to his own girlfriend.
Gives new meaning to the term "Kissing Cousins"
As always in a Hamilton epic...I mean soft-porn flick, young girls cavort around in uninhibited fashion (presumably they are well paid in this regard). THIS time however when all things even out, all they have left is a 14 year old boy (he looks it too). Is this guy lucky or what? still with such attention as comes his way (pardon the pun) he can at least finally "relate" to his own girlfriend.
Gives new meaning to the term "Kissing Cousins"
A truely horrible movie
moneyhorst18 February 2022
The only thing i can think about when watching a David Hamilton movie is that he wanted to put his teenage fantasies on film 30 years after his teenage years were over.
This movie has an extremely forgettable story and characters with the only purpose of showing some semi good half nude scenes. Thats it, thats the entire purpose of the film. Of course everything is drowned in a blur filter that adds no artistic value whatsoever. I've seen low budget gore movies with a better cinematographie and art style.
The far bigger.problem of this movie is that it lacks any form eroticism. Theres no tension and fire, just a collection of semi nude scenes that are wierdly paced so it feels more like enduring them than being able to enjoy them. There is 0 chemistry between the different characters and some scenes have a rapey vibe.
And the "big reveal" at the end is a joke that has 0 to do with the rest of the story and seems like an attempt to add depth to a movie that lacks any form of depth.
The only reason i give 3 stars instead of 1 is that there are 3 scenes that managed to make me laugh but overall it was a serious waste of time.
This movie has an extremely forgettable story and characters with the only purpose of showing some semi good half nude scenes. Thats it, thats the entire purpose of the film. Of course everything is drowned in a blur filter that adds no artistic value whatsoever. I've seen low budget gore movies with a better cinematographie and art style.
The far bigger.problem of this movie is that it lacks any form eroticism. Theres no tension and fire, just a collection of semi nude scenes that are wierdly paced so it feels more like enduring them than being able to enjoy them. There is 0 chemistry between the different characters and some scenes have a rapey vibe.
And the "big reveal" at the end is a joke that has 0 to do with the rest of the story and seems like an attempt to add depth to a movie that lacks any form of depth.
The only reason i give 3 stars instead of 1 is that there are 3 scenes that managed to make me laugh but overall it was a serious waste of time.
French cinema, coming-of-age erotic film
lshurr29 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I like David Hamilton's artistic photographs of nude women at the border of womanhood, sometimes erotic, though never pornographic. Someone else liked them, too, because my David Hamilton books were stolen. In one book were seen a few pictures of a young boy, obviously nude, intimate with a young woman older than he, also nude. Though discrete, there was strong sexual connotation. New territory for David Hamilton which proved to be either stills from the movie Tendres Cousines or perhaps photos taken on set.
The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't "hang together," perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.
It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think "Lucky Julien!" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a "bad thing," all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label.
The art of still photography unfortunately does not automatically translate to cinematography. Soft focus becomes out-of-focus and discrete angles become confusing, perhaps because, in motion, they cannot be considered. You either see it or miss it and there's no time to observe, to comprehend. The movie is supposed to be a farce, and funny things do happen, but it doesn't "hang together," perhaps because the story develops so slowly and one may wonder just what's going on. Eventually, the 14-year-old Julien has intercourse with his cousin, but it's soft core, with no genital contact shown on camera. Since it's a farce, we have a disappointing virgin and an embarrassing caught in the act gag and, having caught them, Julien's father even gives him a cigarette to complete the experience. In fairness, the film is in French and conforms to French cinematic forms, which may just be too subtle for most Americans even with English subtitles to help us Phillistines along.
It's been suggested that this film is child pornography and that certainly results from today's climate where sexual exploitation of children is clearly a serious problem. Nobody in their right mind wants to endorse or appear to endorse the sexual abuse of children, so there's practically no room left for children to be seen in even the mildest erotic context without immediately activating alarms over sexual violence and exploitation. Guys will think "Lucky Julien!" even as they agree that sex and children in the movies is a "bad thing," all the while still wishing they could have been a Julien at that age. Women, too, may have similar thoughts, but all such considerations must be pushed out of one's conscious mind. Hysterically, the worst assumptions have become automatic and matters of children and sex are rigorously avoided. Too bad, since sexual awakening is a real human experience. Afer all, children do grow up and become sexual beings as Julien does. It's a fit literary subject, cinema included, but taboo under the threat of sexual violence against children. David Hamilton, I think, was taking a risk to make a movie on this topic even in 1980. He was somewhat successful at exploring this sensitive topic, and, unfortunately, we're unlikely to see better in the near future for fear of the child pornography label.
The best Hamilton so far
Groverdox15 April 2024
The third movie photographer David Hamilton made might have been his best one yet. It is livelier and more interesting than "Bilitis" and "Laura", and also has a more convincing sense of time and place. You can actually believe that the characters and locale in the movie are real, and that they go on existing in between shots, and outside of them.
However, probably nobody watched a David Hamilton movie for the mise-en-scene. His movies were like artful softcore pornography. "Tendres cousines" actually seems to have less nudity than the previous two flicks. "Bilitis" and "Laura" both had lengthy communal shower scenes with young women frolicking naked. I didn't see any of that here, though there is of course still nudity.
What always struck me about this flick - and the only thing I remembered about it from watching it years ago - is that the male lead, a fourteen year old boy, is more strikingly beautiful than any of the women in the movie. At first, he detracts from the beauty of the female lead, because she is nowhere near as striking as he is, and you wonder why he is interested in her. Then later, when you get a better look at her, you realise she is beautiful too.
The plot features the same theme Hamilton used in his previous two movies: that of unrequited love. Poune (what a name) is in love with her cousin Julien, who is in love with his cousin Julia. His sister Claire is engaged to Charles, but he's got his eye on Julia. A maid at the house tries to seduce Julien and take his virginity, but is caught and fired after she strips naked and lies with him and gets his shirt off. He makes up for it later, though, bagging himself a couple of other girls. He doesn't even look like he's in puberty yet.
I enjoyed this flick more than the others. I just felt like it was more professionally done.
However, probably nobody watched a David Hamilton movie for the mise-en-scene. His movies were like artful softcore pornography. "Tendres cousines" actually seems to have less nudity than the previous two flicks. "Bilitis" and "Laura" both had lengthy communal shower scenes with young women frolicking naked. I didn't see any of that here, though there is of course still nudity.
What always struck me about this flick - and the only thing I remembered about it from watching it years ago - is that the male lead, a fourteen year old boy, is more strikingly beautiful than any of the women in the movie. At first, he detracts from the beauty of the female lead, because she is nowhere near as striking as he is, and you wonder why he is interested in her. Then later, when you get a better look at her, you realise she is beautiful too.
The plot features the same theme Hamilton used in his previous two movies: that of unrequited love. Poune (what a name) is in love with her cousin Julien, who is in love with his cousin Julia. His sister Claire is engaged to Charles, but he's got his eye on Julia. A maid at the house tries to seduce Julien and take his virginity, but is caught and fired after she strips naked and lies with him and gets his shirt off. He makes up for it later, though, bagging himself a couple of other girls. He doesn't even look like he's in puberty yet.
I enjoyed this flick more than the others. I just felt like it was more professionally done.
More than just photography (and a lack of them)
przgzr30 September 2005
Most reviews say that this is the weakest point in Hamilton's short movie career. This movie is a bit different from the rest, and considering it the best or the worst depends on what you expect from a movie, and what you expect from Hamilton.
Knowing Hamilton as a photographer, you can be slightly surprised. While Bilitis looks like his books in a movement with all those young girls discovering themselves and relations with each other on the edge of lesbian, with a plot connecting these scenes, Laura concentrates on few characters what enables developing relations among them (male-female, artist-model) but though we see beautiful photos, many of them better than his average, their number is reduced for the sake of the plot. Tendres cousines is different from both, it is only Hamilton's movie that looks more like a film than like a collection of moving photos. Because of that it can be acceptable to wider audience than Hamilton's fans, looking like an erotic comedy (but not German soft-core type - "Schulmädchen report" fans would be very disappointed). You won't laugh a lot, but you can smile (and that's something you don't often get from Hamilton). Unlike all other Hamilton's movies the age of female varies. Unlike other movies main character is a boy. Unlike his usual works this one isn't put out of place and out of time. We have characters that live their life, have their destiny and don't lead us only from one photo to another, from one nude girl to another.
Unfortunately, Hamilton (again) gets lost with a script in his hands. Girls on beaches, under shower, in low-light rooms, in gardens, under tents, in front of mirrors, regardless of the amount of clothes - this is his territory, he can shoot minutes and hours, and whatever he does you'll always feel the artist's eye and hand behind it. But when he has to present us average everyday life he stops being Hamilton and becomes average director who just follows the script. Hamilton is best known for his nudes, but they are just a part of his work. And in Tendres cousines we have a reverse situation: his girls are not in the best shots. Nature, garden, house remind us on Hamilton's work (often neglected part of it), while girls, even when nude, don't have anything special in the way he presents us. Maybe Hamilton was confused having a boy in front of camera, maybe he was thinking about a line that censorship would accept, maybe he was really trying to make something new (and no one dared to tell him he shouldn't), but he neglected what he was mostly praised for.
Knowing Hamilton as a photographer, you can be slightly surprised. While Bilitis looks like his books in a movement with all those young girls discovering themselves and relations with each other on the edge of lesbian, with a plot connecting these scenes, Laura concentrates on few characters what enables developing relations among them (male-female, artist-model) but though we see beautiful photos, many of them better than his average, their number is reduced for the sake of the plot. Tendres cousines is different from both, it is only Hamilton's movie that looks more like a film than like a collection of moving photos. Because of that it can be acceptable to wider audience than Hamilton's fans, looking like an erotic comedy (but not German soft-core type - "Schulmädchen report" fans would be very disappointed). You won't laugh a lot, but you can smile (and that's something you don't often get from Hamilton). Unlike all other Hamilton's movies the age of female varies. Unlike other movies main character is a boy. Unlike his usual works this one isn't put out of place and out of time. We have characters that live their life, have their destiny and don't lead us only from one photo to another, from one nude girl to another.
Unfortunately, Hamilton (again) gets lost with a script in his hands. Girls on beaches, under shower, in low-light rooms, in gardens, under tents, in front of mirrors, regardless of the amount of clothes - this is his territory, he can shoot minutes and hours, and whatever he does you'll always feel the artist's eye and hand behind it. But when he has to present us average everyday life he stops being Hamilton and becomes average director who just follows the script. Hamilton is best known for his nudes, but they are just a part of his work. And in Tendres cousines we have a reverse situation: his girls are not in the best shots. Nature, garden, house remind us on Hamilton's work (often neglected part of it), while girls, even when nude, don't have anything special in the way he presents us. Maybe Hamilton was confused having a boy in front of camera, maybe he was thinking about a line that censorship would accept, maybe he was really trying to make something new (and no one dared to tell him he shouldn't), but he neglected what he was mostly praised for.
Excellent french sex farce
rlcsljo19 January 2002
As others have mentioned, all the women that go nude in this film are mostly absolutely gorgeous. The plot very ably shows the hypocrisy of the female libido. When men are around they want to be pursued, but when no "men" are around, they become the pursuers of a 14 year old boy. And the boy becomes a man really fast (we should all be so lucky at this age!). He then gets up the courage to pursue his true love.
Cremaster
tedg18 December 2006
Film is still young enough for there to be credible arguments about just what it is.
Its entirely possible for someone to believe it is about what photography is, what the majority of us think photography is.
Here's a photographer, and he believes that. His photographs evoke remembrances of an innocent sexuality, false memories certainly but sweet smelling. There's a deliberate unreality in the photos, with girls in nearly surreal poses with the lens gauzed as if there were a barrier of sorts between our reality and that we see or is it imagine?
There's all sorts of implied narrative in these still photos. They are so, so very rich in what they imply.
Now to film. I've seem "Laura," which was successful in a minor way because the artist dreaming about the new woman was placed in the story explicitly. Oh and he has vision problems, and he needs to translate his story by shifting senses (to touch) just as we do from photo to movie.
This is his next project. I really don't know what he was thinking. Before he had sexual imaginings, here he simply has sex. Before he focused on a wonderful symmetry: our imaginations of a young girl balanced with her imaginings of an older man. I guess he thought he could work a similar symmetry here with a young boy instead of the older artist. But it fails in an extraordinarily large way.
I think that is because in this case he invested too much in the story, the power of the story to carry the thing, and he drifted too far away from where he has power, the image. I think "Walkabout" successfully does what this attempts. Go there instead.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
Its entirely possible for someone to believe it is about what photography is, what the majority of us think photography is.
Here's a photographer, and he believes that. His photographs evoke remembrances of an innocent sexuality, false memories certainly but sweet smelling. There's a deliberate unreality in the photos, with girls in nearly surreal poses with the lens gauzed as if there were a barrier of sorts between our reality and that we see or is it imagine?
There's all sorts of implied narrative in these still photos. They are so, so very rich in what they imply.
Now to film. I've seem "Laura," which was successful in a minor way because the artist dreaming about the new woman was placed in the story explicitly. Oh and he has vision problems, and he needs to translate his story by shifting senses (to touch) just as we do from photo to movie.
This is his next project. I really don't know what he was thinking. Before he had sexual imaginings, here he simply has sex. Before he focused on a wonderful symmetry: our imaginations of a young girl balanced with her imaginings of an older man. I guess he thought he could work a similar symmetry here with a young boy instead of the older artist. But it fails in an extraordinarily large way.
I think that is because in this case he invested too much in the story, the power of the story to carry the thing, and he drifted too far away from where he has power, the image. I think "Walkabout" successfully does what this attempts. Go there instead.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
