The review from Parents Magazine:
And while it may not seem particularly flattering, it is when compared to their review of hoDS. One thing the two have in common is the magazine accuses both films of bad direction and acting - but then they also betray themselves as being prejudiced against DS because the hoDS review says the mystery to them is the daytime show's great popularity. And while they rated NoDS "Fair" for adults, that's actually a step up because hoDS was rated "Mediocre".
Quite honestly, whenever I read almost any of the reviews in Parents I picture the critic as someone like Dana Carvey's Church Lady because it's like very little pleases him/her because he/she finds fault in almost everything (though they did at least say that NoDS has an interesting and unusual plot - well, before they say how it gets ruined). But in the case of this particular review I definitely picture a Church Lady type because of how the review accuses NoDS of containing nudity. What?! About the most the film gets in the nudity department (even when it comes to the more explicit/graphic version) is this shot of Angelique:
(Click
here for a 1160X640 version)
But, please, there's more cleavage on display in the majority of period dramas! Heck, there's more nudity on display in hoDS thanks to how Carolyn's shroud sometimes leaves little to the imagination (and there's no mention of nudity at all in Parents' hoDS review). But neither the DS films nor the period dramas would be considered showcasing nudity by the majority of individuals. But then, if you have a Church Lady mentality, well...
Although, perhaps the Church Lady reviewer felt the need to bring up nudity because of the sketch hanging on the wall in Charles' studio:
If so, thank heavens the version of NoDS shown in theaters was 1.85:1 and not the 4:3 version of the VHS in which the sketch is seen like this:
The reviewer's head might have exploded!!