Reviews

this movie holds a special place in my heart because, when i taped it off of cinemax late night in 1991 and watched it at the tender age of twelve, it was my first soft-core porn. i thought i was being totally naughty at the time although now, much older and wiser, i realize how tame and silly this film is. nevertheless, is shall never forget, uh, ur...actually i kind of have forget it. well, i do remember that marilyn chambers plays herself(as usual) and she inherits or somehow acquires a bed and breakfast resort where, of course, the people spend almost all their time in bed. there's some lame subplot about an undercover agent which only memorable because of the actress playing the agent takes her top off numerous time. okay, i realize its no big deal now but when you're a hetero-curious twelve year old, seeing perfect, fake breasts for the first time is a big deal. there's also this seinfeld, george constanza look-alike who has the hots for the agent. anyway, it all ends up in bed with marilyn fu...ur, excuse me...making love with some guy while showing off her still firm body and big, fake boobs.

this movie about early 80's san fernando valley girls, who set a world-wide trend with their neon mini-skirts, big hair, and like, far-out diction should have been great but it isn't. the movie isn't bad, it's just boring. deborah foreman is bland in the title role, which should have been reserved for moon unit zappa. like, she would have been totally bitchin'. it also has nick cage as a punk rocker, back in the days when he was actually good-looking. even the soundtrack of this film, which should have been great, is mediocre. the only humorous things in the film are the hideous 80's fashion and ugly hair. i mean haven't seen hair this feathered since "the facts of life" went off the air. the main problem with "valley girl" is that it seems to be catering to its valley girl audience, rather than satirizing them as the stupid, shallow, reaganite bimbos that they were.

i mean it, what the hell is up with that? i saw this movie almost three years ago, when i was a freshmen in college and living in the dorms. i had read somewhere that it had one of the most shocking endings of all time. i rented it from the videostore i was working at and watched it with my roommate. wow, this was a terrible film...even by cheesy horror film standards. my roommate and i both needed alcohol to get through the first eighty minutes or so, he ended up passing out before the end and i was pretty much plastered by the time the film ended and, after i got over the immediate shock, all could say was "huh?". looking back now, through the hazy memory of an drunken stupor, it was one of the most surreal moments in my life. the ending probably wouldn't have been as effective if i had been sober, but i'll never know since i don't plan on ever watching it again. despite the bizarrely whacked-out ending, i would still not recommend this movie to anyone, since the product as a whole is so totally wretched. besides the aforementioned whacked-out ending, the only other memorable thing in this movie is the performance of the woman who plays the mother. she gives a performance that manages to be both cheesy and creepy at the same time. i remind you once again that i was drunk, so don't hold that statement to me.

when i was a kid and went to the videostore with my mom, i always wanted to rent this movie, which i knew had something to do with cannibalism, but my mom would refuse, saying it was a "dirty" movie. now years later, at age 20, i recently stumbled across it and discovered it is a somewhat "dirty" movie, at least by my mom's puritanical standards and it's the sexual part of the film that makes it memorable rather than the cannibalism. i've heard good things about paul bartel's earlier work but he didn't seem that sharp in this film, either as a director or actor. the best thing in this movie is mary woronov. i admit that i'm biased, being a devoted fan of hers ever since i saw her playing the evil principal togar in "rock n roll highschool". anyway, her deadpan acting style is perfect as the uptight mary bland, who indulges in sex and murder, but only to achieve her wholesome dreams and make the world a better place. susan saiger is also great as doris the dominatrix, especially when giving paul and mary bland pointers on how to make money doing sexwork. there are some other very funny scenes as well as some social commentary on the swinging lifestyle of pre-aids los angeles. the movie goes downhill after the appearance of raoul, a latino repairman who falls for mary. this leads to the inevitable climax that the title gives away. the ending seemed unnecessary and out of place, as if bartel had run out of ideas on how to end the film and came up with the most outrageous gimmick he could think of to sell it. i guess it worked, since this film is a fairly well known cult film. however, i think this would have been a far better film if bartel had spent more time working on the satire.

this film as a raw, gritty quality that makes it way scarier than those glossy 90's horror films. i love slasher films and, although i think the original "friday the 13th" and "halloween" are scarier than this film, for some reason i find this film deeply disturbing. maybe its the sight of the killer with a grocery bag over his face or the presence of that chick from the general foods coffee commercials, you know the one(remember our trip to paris...that waiter), but this movie just creeped me out when i was a kid. anyway, its the same old plot about a bunch of horny kids getting butchered but this movie seems more mean spirited than most slasher films...a guy in a wheelchair even gets hacked to death. the movie is also unsettling with its blatant misogyny, with the camera zooming in on the naked flesh of at least two of the female victims right before they get killed. the way the coffee chick tried to outwit the killer was totally lame and, of course, her boyfriend had to step in and save her. and i really hated that anticlimactic "shock" ending that they threw out like in the first film. nevertheless, this is my favorite "friday the 13th" film, but for all the wrong reasons...

this movie was really weird, even by 70's blaxploitation standards. tamara dobson was one fine looking black woman, but doesn't look she could kick anybody's butt. the fight scenes were really cheesy and, even though cleopatra beats up innumerable people, you never actually see her beat anybody up because of all the quick cutting and editing. in a typical scene, they'll be a close up of cleopatra giving a karate chop and in the next, the guy is falling down. we never actually see any contact. anyway, cleopatra couldn't really kick butt because she'd mess up her outlandish 70's fashions, including big furry hats and tight dresses with spangles. shelley winters gives a totally over the top performance as the lesbian leader of an inner-city heroin ring. her appearance is grotesque, even by her standards and no heterosexual man will find lesbianism sexy after seeing fat shelley grope her pretty, female assistants behind and get an erotic foot massage from another one. anyway, cleopatra jones is a total hypocrite in that she's claims she's fighting to get drugs off the streets of the ghetto and make it a better place for her downtrodden brothers and sisters while she rides around in an expensive corvette and wears expensive clothes. she seems far removed from the economic plight in the ghetto and the fact that she works for a government organization means that she isn't taking it to Whitey, cleopatra jones is Whitey!

this swedish, german(or wherever the hell its from) soft core porn is SLEAZY! i mean, the whole idea behind the suck-o-matic machine was kind of interesting but they shouldn't have been so gratuitous. the film was also really sexist. i realize that soft-core porn isn't exactly geared toward readers of feminist discourse, but it was still offensive. i mean all the guys tried to have sex with the women almost immediately and, of course, the women were all passive about it. also, they guys that the women had to have sex with were all ugly. even if your a heterosexual man, wouldn't rather see a good looking man naked? worth a look if it turns up on late-night t.v. and your horny, which is the only condition that will make this film worthwhile.

forget "the towering inferno" and "earthquake", when we look back at the disaster films of the 70's, "the poseidon adventure" is the archetype. many of the situations and characters in this film about a ship turned upside down might been new or original in 1972(although i doubt it) but all seem cliched today. nevertheless, this movie is worth watching for a good laugh. all the characters are one dimensional and underdeveloped, not that it matters because people don't watch films like these films for the acting. actually, gene hackman's performance is quite good, considering he is in such a schlocky film. however, the movie also has some god awful acting, particularly by carole lynley who hardly speaks thoughout the film but still manages to be completely annoying. i swear, if i were one the poseidon survivors, i would have straight out smacked her! pamela sue martin is cute but doesn't have much to do besides gaze longingly at hackman, who, by the way, plays a preacher!? this movie is really sexist, as all the women act really passive and all wear really short, shorts with their butt cheeks hanging out. basically, this film is a perfect representation of the "silly seventies".

I stumbled across this film at the media center in my college where I was doing research for a paper on prostitution and the description of this film made it sound like a documentary on homosexual hustlers in west Hollywood. This movie was not what I expected but it was quite an experience. I can't say that I liked this movie but I'll never forget it, as certain images from it are stuck in my head forever. There isn't much plot beyond the story of an annoying German queen (played by the director) who is obsessed with a is-he-or-isn't-he-gay street hustler. I thought Tony Ward, as the hustler, was particularly unattractive, as there's no way I would ever pay to have sex with him. As a matter of fact, except for the cute bald guy who gets mummified and the blond porn star who gets gang banged, I thought all the guys in this movie were average looking at best. So, basically the most enlightening thing that I derived from this movie is that I'm just as good-looking as the guys who work the corner of Santa Monica boulevard. I just might give this street hustling thing a shot. Anyway, like I said there is some mummification, a gang bang, as well as bondage and an incredible scene of amputee gay sex, which is the most explicit I've ever seen. This scene, in particular, for better or worse will stay with me forever. Also, the kissing scene between Ward and the German guy really gave me the creeps. Don't get me wrong, I'm not homophobic and I like to see two guys kiss as much as any other red-blooded American boy but not these two...it really made me sick. In all, this flick is definitely worth a look, unless you're easily offended, and you'll certainly never forget it.

The flip side to optimistic, hopelessly naive, queer-positive films like "Beautiful Thing", in fact this movie could be called "ugly thing". This movie shows the dark side of human sexuality in all people, not just gay ones. With a great book as source material, an awesome cast, and a terrific score by Coil (the greatest), this movie has everything going for it, even if those uptight queens at the SF gay and lesbian film festival booed it off the screen. Anyway, this isn't a movie for mainstream audiences, whether they be homophobic heteros or gay yuppies. There is a plot to this movie but it doesn't seem to be that important, taking a back seat to the striking visuals and twisted eroticism on the screen. Snuff films, bondage, violent sexual mutilation, and brother-to-brother incest are just a few of the trangressive delights in this film. Performances of note include Parker Posey who makes an extended cameo as a wild-eyed serial killer and Raoul O'Connell who is notable only because he is hot, hot, hot!

I love this movie. Okay, so maybe it looks like just a cheap, italian porn flick but there's so much more to it. There is something vaguely disturbing and sinister about this film that it makes it that much more erotic. Basically, its the story of a paper-back writer who goes undercover as a prostitute to research for her steamy new novel. Along the way, she has sex with lots of greasy, italian men, degrades herself in front of assorted perverts and turns a gay man straight. If anybody could straighten out a gay man it would be Jessica Moore(or whatever her real name is). The sleazy, new orleans ambience of this film is terrific as you can almost feel the heat, humidity and sex. There are some striking, disturbing visuals, like when Moore does some kinky posing with mannequins for a photographer. There are some clowns thrown in, which always gives a film a sinister edge, and lots of homoerotic undertones(or is that overtones?). Anyway, go out and get this movie and wallow in its sleaze and perversity.

I saw the first movie for the first time when I was about thirteen and it instantly became one of my favorites. Throughout the years, I've shown to all my family members and friends who, on the whole, have been much less enthusiastic about than I am. Seven years later, I can recognize that the movie has flaws. It's derivative(with a plot taken from Hitchcock's "psycho"), the rape fantasy scene is misogynistic, the scene of the hooker being pursued by street thugs is racist, the slow-motion scenes are excessive and melodramatic, and the resolution is an offense to transgendered people everywhere. But you know what...I DON'T CARE, I still love this move. I don't love it for De Palma's heavy-handed direction, which no longer impresses like it did when I was kid. I certainly don't love it because of the great acting although I think nancy allen (Mrs. De Palma at the time) never looked or acted better than she did in this film. This may not be saying much since, aside from the films she made with her husband, the highlight of her career has been the "Robocop" movies. However, I love this movie because, to me, it perfectly captures the mood and ambience of the sleazy underside of the New York city in the late seventies and early eighties. Outside of soft-core porn, you'll not find a better evocation of those grimy, trashy, sexually promiscuous "porno chic" days. Before Aids and before Times Square was turned into a Disney tourist attraction, New York city represented everything that was dirty, uncontrolled, and dangerous in American society and human sexuality. Since I wasn't an adult at the time, I guess I shouldn't romanticize an era that most people don't seem to looking back to but I can't help it. To me, De Palma's "Dressed to Kill" is a time capsule of a time and era when there were still taboos being broken and a lot of people were doing very bad things.