I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Easily one of the worst movies of all time, this badly shot and edited pretentious bore did attract moviegoers in the late '60s on the strength of the then novelty of seeing a few fleeting nude scenes -- which,m just like the rest of this endless waste of motion picture film, were ineptly staged, lit, miked and photographed. The movie starts with a parade of brief man-on-the-street interviews of no interest to anyone and quickly goes downhill from there. All I can assume is that production company must have thought it would be fun to compile to feature-length a lot of embarrassingly amateurish garbage and throw in a few utterly unerotic sex scenes in order to see how much of the public could thus be enticed to waste their time and money. The gimmick worked -- at first -- until those so fooled began to warn their friends that they'd have a far better time undergoing root canal.

"I Am Curious: Yellow" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) "double-standard" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies.

I was 15 years old in 1967 and this was the first "X Rated" movie to show in my home town. We had a brand-new twin screen theater and the MPAA's rating system was new and theater operators did not yet know how to deal with the ratings, so I just walked up, purchased a ticket and walked right in (I was 15 and looked like I was about 12 or 13.. they had to know). I originally attended he movie to see the sex. I had never seen anything even remotely containing nudity and was curious. I remember being unimpressed with the nudity and sex, but actually enjoyed the picture. On my way out, I bumped into a Jr. High School History teacher of mine, who attended the same Church as my family. She sheepishly walked up and said, "...tell you what Jim, I won't tell your mother I saw you here if you don't tell her you saw me (and her husband) here". "It's a deal", I said worrying about my own skin and I never told my little secret. I'd like to try to find it on DVD to see how I would look at it nearly 40 years later. I'd give the movie ***** (five) stars out of 10, based on the 40 year-old memory of a 15 year old viewer.

This is a great film - esp when compared with the sometimes wearisome earnestness of today's politically-minded filmmakers. A film that can so easily combine sex, gender relations, politics and art is a rarity these days. While the bouyant optimism of the 1960's can't be regained, I think we can at least learn a lesson from the film's breezy energy and charm. I don't know what those who label the film "boring" were watching - there's so much packed into it that it never remains the same film for more that 15 min at a time.