jaroslaw99 I will say that I rented it for the nudity but tried watching the documentary. This guy Spencer Tunick is such a flake and so arrogant. He is asked what makes a bunch of naked people standing around so special and he can't really even defend his own actions. He has a partner who comes across brainy, but then talks and talks without saying much. I would say the most artistic thing in the whole 76 minute movie is some naked people on beautiful rocks by the ocean. As if that hasn't been done a million times by other photographers. Amazing that he could get so many people to get naked for free. Oh, what I mean by flakey? He says in one shoot something like "Only 400 people showed up? I expected 700 - how can I possibly complete the project?" (what is the difference and he didn't pay them!) Like I said, I rented it for the nudity; male in particular. It was either moderately close shots of large numbers of people walking close together (so you only got a millisecond look) or it was a long distance shot, or from an angled side view or people walking by and you see them from the back. Or they were curled up on the sidewalk/pavement. Let me be clear - I didn't expect porn or eroticism, or extreme closeups but if you're going to have all these naked people, show something or else what is the point?

artisticengineer Art and nudity have been together in the Western world for thousands of years-dating back to the Ancient Greeks who viewed the body as one of the if not the most beautiful work of art. That, at least, is the western viewpoint. Other cultures vary; not so much as to whether the body is beautiful or not but rather as to when it is appropriate to display the body to all. Mr. Tunick, in this film, goes around the world to try to show the "body is beautiful" viewpoint belongs worldwide. And, to a significant degree, he succeeds. Actually, his film could be viewed not so much as a film about the human body or nakedness but rather about cultural differences overall. For example, his ease of obtaining volunteers in London versus the problems he had in Ireland shows the cultural differences still existing between those societies.Particular mention and praise should be made to him going to a post apartheid South Africa and attempting to recruit (mostly) black models. Virtually all of the models in his previous photo shoots have been white; and this is certainly understandable in places such as Russia (only Black Russian I know of is a drink!). However, other peoples with much different skin tones exist and by going to South Africa he certainly attempted to diversify his selection. I commend him for that even though he seemed to be less than totally successful in that endeavor. The only part of the show that I really object to is the Antarctica session. He wanted to do a worldwide show and, in that regards, I understand his decision to go to the Antarctic. But, I still object for a couple of reasons. The first one, most importantly, is that the Antarctic does not have any indigenous human population-the one part of the landed world that does not. The second objection is more of an artistic nature, and that is due to the environment a nude human being is in no way "natural" in Antarctica. What we see in this movie is the coastal region in SUMMER; the most benign area and time of the year for that entire continent and it is still way too cold for people to venture out without insulating clothes. The models are nude for just a few minutes at a time; yet it is obvious that they are at their limits even then and certainly could not survive for much longer in a nude condition. Nude humans and the Antarctic are therefore oxymorons; they do not go together and Antarctica does not belong in Spencer Tunick's portfolio. Having mentioned that I will say that overall this film is a good example of artistic figure studies.

Gordon-11 This film is a film of thousands of naked bodies that is disguised as 'art'.It is a very fine line between 'art' and 'porn'. I am not very convinced that this guy is making art. From the film, he admitted that he was doing this for personal satisfaction. I think that the only thing that he could be applauded for was being a persuasive person to create a mass hysteria to take off their clothes.I also found it very insulting to the interviewees, that they actually put subtitles to non American speakers of English. I could excuse them putting subtitles on the Russian woman who was speaking English with an accent (but it was completely understandable English). However, I found it inexcusable to put subtitles on the AUSTRALIANS who were speaking perfect English.Another outrageous thing was that he critised the French for "not relaxed about their bodies as they think they are". Just because some of the French people refused to pose naked for him, did not mean he could attack others like that.I am angered by this film.

raymond-15 I guess Tunick's work as a photographer will always be controversial. Is it pornography or is it art? May be neither. He does insist though that he does not want to replicate the work of others. He has gone out of his way to create something new...nudes en masse in public places. To use naked human beings thus is certainly original. He crowds thousands of them into his foreground...lying on their backs on cold damp pavements or kneeling with rear ends up. He is evidently trying to invent a new texture. It could be done with a thousand sheep (though difficult to control) but using humans in a public place is daring and adds a touch of eroticism.Is it a coincidence that in nearly every shot we see in the background an erect structure...a mast, a tower, a steeple or spire?Some of his experimental photos are better than others. One needs a lot of imagination to accept the prone figures lying haphazardly on the wharf below the "Cutty Sark" as a part of the ocean.. I ask you does it really look like a seascape of rippled water or rocky shore?The most interesting part of the film is his interviews with people of different cultures and different attitudes inviting them to divest themselves of their clothes for the sake of "art". In his world tour he found the people of Montreal cooperative but not so in France or Japan. Amazingly 4000 turned up in Melbourne (Australia) to bare their bodies in rather bleak weather. Is it something to do with mass hysteria? As for Antarctica the few nudes in that icy region did not look at all relaxed and the penguins were rather perplexed too. It was contrived and senseless. A bare backside perched on an icy ledge has no meaning and verges on the ridiculous.One soon gets used to the nudity which pervades this film. A number of people are asked why they agreed to be naked in front of the lens. The response in most cases was the same....it gave them a feeling of new found freedom.Note that in one scene there is a risk of danger in baring one's bottom in a public square. A man hurriedly dons his pants when an unexpected dog appears barking madly!There is one detail which puzzles me. It's this....how do 4000 people find their clothes again after discarding them in some back alley?What will Spencer Tunick think of next and how long will this novelty last?