I knew absolutely nothing about this film before viewing it recently. Richard Dreyfuss, is, of course a very famous actor, although this movie was near the beginning of his career. It is sexy, but the furor over X ratings back in the day was much overblown. (No pun intended) The MPAA made a big mistake using X as a rating, because the porn industry immediately invented XXX. NC-17 is a better idea, but it should maybe be used for things other than sex, such as graphic violence. It is weird you can't show much frontal nudity, even without graphic sex, but you can show dismemberment and disemboweling to teenagers all day long. Anyway, this was a nice, and quite odd character study, mainly in Dreyfuss' and Jessica Harper's roles. And the young Veronica Cartwright was interesting, too. A decent, and different film.

John Byrum's 1975 film "Inserts" owes a lot to Hitchcock's 1948 classic "Rope". Although it does not feature Hitchcock's experimental feature length continuous shot, it is nonetheless told in real time. The 115 minute running length is the time needed to tell the story as it is the entire duration of the action on the screen, nicely book-ended by shots of the main character alone in his Hollywood home playing the piano. There are no flashbacks or progression of time sequences, and the camera frame never leaves the immediate area of the great room of the house. Technically two cameras as this is one of those "film within a film" things; one on and one off screen. The main character (played by Richard Dreyfuss) is a gone-to-seed once famous movie director nicknamed "The Boy Wonder". It's never made entirely clear whether his is a self-imposed exile; only that he has great disdain for talking pictures. In the midst of the Great Depression he earns money cranking out smut films shot inside his doomed home; a house standing in the path of the so-to-be Hollywood freeway.Inside his Moorish style bungalow, all the Boy Wonder needs is a girl, a boy, a camera, and a bottle. This is a casual set with the director prowling around in his bathrobe and the swimming pool serving as his septic tank. And not unexpectedly there are a fair amount of self-reflexive movie references in the script; such as those about the "new Gable kid at Pathe" who wants The Boy Wonder to direct his next film. "Inserts" is odd and ambitious, more a play than a film; with dialog and intensity level worthy of "Dinner Rush" (2002). Watch how all scene transitions are signaled by the entrance or exit of a character speaking dramatic entrance and exit lines. The Boy Wonder's leading lady (played by Veronica Cartwright) is the first character to make an appearance. She's an airhead flapper with a heroin habit and a heart of gold. Cartwright is wonderful in this role, with a voice just slightly less irritating than the one Jean Hagen brought to her character in "Singin in the Raid". Voices that for obvious reasons were a better fit in the silent film days. Next to appear is the leading man, Rex the Wonder Dog (Stephen Davies), a gravedigger who will do anything to break into the movie business. Bob Hoskins plays Big Mac, a gangster with a plan to open up a chain of hamburger stands. He is financing The Boy Wonder's films and pays a visit to the set along with his new girl Cathy Cake (Jessica Harper). Cathy has come from Chicago to break into the talkies and is playing Big Mac to get a jump-start on her acting career. "Inserts" shares its main theme with "The Stunt Man", the blurring of a participants's ability to distinguish between the reality of life and the fiction being acted for the camera. Watch for the occasions where the actors get into a scene too far; even the "barely with a pulse" Boy Wonder gets too involved. A liquor bottle broken over their head quickly brings these characters back to earth, insert heavy symbolism here. Bynum also allegorically explores the dynamic of an artist who must create for an audience for whom he has total contempt. The Boy Wonder is equally contemptuous of smut viewers and mainstream commercial movie goers. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Released after American Graffitti and before Jaws, a chance to catch Richard Dreyfuss in something that can be considered a legitimate art film, albeit with a bit of a bigger budget. Also amusing is Bob Hoskins in his role as Big Mac, making the same references to the upcoming onslaught of LA Freeways that served as a major plot device in his more well-known Eddie Valient role in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".Rather graphic for its time in the portrayal of full frontal female nudity, with a glimpse of full frontal male nudity (although we are spared the sight of Richard Dreyfuss and/or Bob Hoskins in the buff), the entire film takes place in one setting, with plenty of camera tracking movements instead of rapid cutting.Jessica Harper as Cathy Cake is a wonderful character, and I am a bit surprised that her career was not more extensive. I wonder if this role hurt her marketability at all. Both Harper and Veronica Cartwright have plenty of scenes with casual nudity, and Dreyfuss is rarely seen without a whiskey bottle in hand.Its now available on DVD. Check it out if you can.As unique a "movie within a movie" film as you will ever see.

I recall seeing the ads for this movie when it first came out. At 14 there was no way I was going to get to see it, but having seen "American Graffiti" and as a result, being a big Richard Dreyfus fan, and just the composition of the poster, I HAD to see this. The rating had nothing to do with it (X at the time) though I found it intriguing that Richard Dreyfus might be in an "X" rated movie. I mean, come on, this is Curt we're talking about! He's a real guy, not some sick-o, right? That was my way of thinking at fourteen.Many years later, I finally got to see it after renting it at a video store. It was uncut so editing cannot be blamed.I was very, VERY disappointed. It was long and tedious and it became an effort to watch. Why it got an "X" and later an "NC-17" I never really figured out, but not being on the ratings board, who I am to second-guess? In a nutshell, I may watch this once more in my lifetime, but only in the hopes I can find some redeeming quality to it, or have my loathing of the movie validated.Additional Material: April 1, 2015. It's now a few years after I wrote that above review. Several months ago (maybe more-who cares?) I saw this available and watched it again. Let me rephrase that, I started to watch this again and did actually watch some of it. The rest I fast forwarded through. Once it was over I could give in to the desperate need to sleep. It was no better than I recalled. I will NEVER watch it again.