Reviews

It would be too easy for me to cut and paste my review of "The Sex Trip" and place it here as a review of "Sam", but since one of my adages is "don't recreate the wheel when it already exists", I'll start off my review of "Sam" with the first lines of my comments on "The Sex Trip."

"I came across this movie while searching Amazon Prime, and as I like gender switching movies like 'Switch' and 'It's a Boy Girl Thing,' I thought to give it a try.

"It is really, truly, an awful movie. The dialogue in this movie tells me that the writers think insulting people is funny; it's not. The Sex Trip's (Sam's) main characters make crude remarks to all of the other characters."

The dialogue and acting makes me hypothesize that the two writers and director of "Sam", were sitting around drunk, probably, watching "Switch", and said to themselves, "Hey, let's write a gender changing comedy and we'll get all our pals to be in the film." They even set the main character's occupation in the New York advertising industry as in "Switch."

Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney getting the gang together to put on a show and save the (whatever) this film is not.

I have seen better performances in TV insurance commercials than in "Sam." Emu is a better actor than the majority of people appearing in this film. Stacy Keach has a small role, (they said in film school that some "past-their-prime" actors will come in and do one day's work for $25,000 (1990's dollars), I guess Stacy needed to buy his daughter a new car) and it's like watching Babe Ruth opposite a Tee Ball player.

The main character is supposed to be a young (no one in this film is over 25 except for Stacy Keach and Morgan Fairchild, another past-their-prime actor in need of buying their child a new car), highly successful advertising executive, who doesn't even know what a Pavlovian Response is; something I learned about in Pysch 101 at the local community college my freshman year.

"Sam's" script is filled with cringe wrenching dialogue:

Examples:

When Sam emails his boss that his cousin Samantha will be filling in for him while he's away (right out of "Switch") the head of the firm says, "Cousin Samantha, huh. Oh well, as long as she's hot."

Needless to say, the head of the advertising firm hits on Samantha, which is, once again, right out of "Switch."

Or, when Sam's best pal is at home with his significant other and she says,

"Either Boo-Boo apologizes and gets very snuggly, very quickly, or Soo-Soo is gonna squeeze Boo-Boo's balls. And I guarantee, you're not gonna like it."

As in "The Sex Trip," the main character overreacts when experiencing a woman's menstrual period.

The head of the advertising company even uses the cliché line, "The eyes are the windows to the soul," (which didn't work when I used it on a drunk woman in a bar in 1979), when he hits on the female Sam.

The writers, like every bad writer, has the French character with two first names, in this case Jean-George. A caricature not a character. I have a lot of French relatives and none of them have two first names.

One wonders how a film like this can get made. Answer, the producer/writer/director is Nicholas Brooks, son of Mel.

I'll end my review of "Sam" as I ended my review on "The Sex Trip."

"There is nothing "new" in this film from other gender switching movies, but there are a lot "bad" elements; ie, the main character not knowing what a woman's menstrual period entails.

"Stay away; stay far, far away from this film."

I came across this movie while searching Amazon Prime, and as I like gender switching movies like "Switch" and "It's a Boy Girl Thing," I thought to give it a try.

It is really, truly, an awful movie. The dialogue in this movie tells me that the writers think insulting people is funny; it's not. The Sex Trip's main characters make crude remarks to all of the other characters. I've been a judge in some newbie screenwriting competitions and let me tell you this script would not make it past the first round, which entails reading and judging the first thirty pages.

The film is loaded with stereotypes; again, the writers think caricatures not characters are funny; they're not.

There is nothing "new" in this film from other gender switching movies, but there is a lot "bad" eliminates; ie, the main character not knowing what a woman's menstrual period entails.

Stay away; stay far, far away from this film.

I watched this short on my computer while a movie was playing on the TV and the short was more interesting that the movie. It's a little cliquish but overall I enjoyed the time I spent watching the film.

The production values are good and the acting is fine, but I didn't fine anything really surprising not even the end. The short talks about the exploitation of the female form but could have gone more in-depth for the film to receive a higher rating and be more interesting.

This is the type of film which you hope that the next scene will be the one where it takes off and becomes interesting, and it doesn't, so you hope the next scene will be the one, and it's not, and then hope the next scene will be the one, but the next scene is just as boring as all the ones which proceed it, so you (I) finally give up and watch a rerun of Gillian's Island and have a far better time.

I wasted a Netflix rental on giving this film a try; learn from my mistake.

The production values are better than the story. The film has a flat, linear note to it rather than building on any suspense.

More tension would aid the project such as the husband attempting to call his wife during the attack and her trying to get to the phone, or the attacker and husband passing each other such as the husband getting off an elevator and the attacker getting on after the husband exits.

I didn't find the wife to be uniquely attractive, more dolled up than a natural beauty,

The short is okay, but immediately forgettable once it is viewed.

My opinion is that this short is poorly done.

First, the woman is labeled as a trophy wife, but her husband is a cop. Cops can't afford trophy wives. The film shows their wedding picture, but she doesn't wear any wedding or engagement rings.

Second, she takes a shower, with dry water. There is not one drop of water on her as she towel dries.

Third, Dianna Renee, as I understand it a former model, can't act.

Fourth, the sound recording is poor, There were a couple of words which I couldn't make out what was being said.

Someone else gave this a 9 out of 10. In my opinion, it was someone associated with the production of this film.