Flesh Gordon Meets the Cosmic Cheerleaders
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 2:[1] [2]
Index 19 reviews in total 

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Much Better than I expected

5/10
Author: Space_Mafune from Newfoundland, Canada
12 February 2003

Yes this is tasteless, crude and vulgar...but then what else should one expect from a sex-comedy sci-fi spoof. While this is also rather silly and stupid, I have to say though that this film is nonetheless very well made with some very cool and fun stop-motion fx and some neat little jokes at Star Wars expense...certainly it's much better(and funnier) than many of the sex comedy farces that get released nowadays.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst

Author: david-345 from Charlotte NC
20 August 2001

The original Flesh Gordon was a silly, campy take off on Flash Gordon and his serial compatriots. Flesh 1 was sophomoric to be sure, but the humour did work and the film is very entertaining. Not so the long delayed sequel that I recently purchased on DVD. As soon as I find a store that buys used DVDs, I will unload this piece of garbage. The director claimed that "political correctness" is what held the film's release up. After veiwing it I feel that it was shelved for so long due to the fact that it stinks, big time! The comedy in Flesh 2 is in such bad taste that it is not funny at all, it's just gross and offensive. It's all down hill after a promising "film within a film" opening, which itself is ruined by the antics of "King Dong" (bet the screen writers spent hours coming upon with that one). Speaking of bad comedy, I have to mention the Turd people, yes, Turd people. I feel really sorry for the folks playing these characters. I doubt that they put this film on their resumes. Mr. Hanky it's not. And couldn't they have cast better looking women in the parts of the Cosmic Cheerleaders? The ladies on view in these roles are dogs! And one is supposed to be an ex Playmate. I guess Heffner is going blind in his old age. At least the girl playing Dale is attractive as are the ladies in the opening sequence. The new guy playing Flesh was obviously chosen for his body rather than acting skills, which are nill. Another major problem is that the film has no sense of pace whatsoever. Even thought it's fairly short at 100 minutes or so, the film really drags and after awhile you wonder if it will ever end. This is what they made fast forward for.

The only nice touch is the return of the guy who played Wang the Perverted in the first film. And that's it. Please do not waste your time or money on this peice of dreck. It simply is one of the worst.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Not for prudes but for those with a sense of humour

10/10
Author: bigeddie69 from London
29 July 2002

Inspired genius, the film is almost as funny as watching those who can't take it, walk out of the cinema in disgust. One for a midnight showing after four or five beers and you must see it with a girl on a first date, she'll love it.

When will we get a third?

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Not only one of the worst movies ever made, but one of the worst SEQUELS.

1/10
Author: Mephisto-24 from Perth, Australia
25 July 2000

Have you noticed how many sequels are in any list of worst movies, or in video clearance sales? Well, this is one of those films that gives sequels a bad name. Unlike the original, which featured some interesting eye candy among hilarious jokes, this fails miserably both as comedy and porn, being unsexy (not to mention tacky) and unfunny. The kindest thing I can say about this film is that it's ultimately forgettable.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Well this movie certainly has s**t for brains!

2/10
Author: gridoon
29 June 2003

Possessing a sense of humor that can be generously described as "infantile", performances so frantic they may give you a headache, and special effects that are mostly obvious miniatures, this abomination plumbs the depths of tastelessness and stupidity like few films you'll ever see. So it has a certain curiosity value. But neither that, nor the large amount of T&A, are justifiable excuses for any rating higher than....0.5 out of 4 stars.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Easily the worst film in the whole universe!

Author: DJ Inferno
12 May 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

*****Spoiler!*****

First I wanted to comment this film with only one word: BULLSH!T... but then I decided to write a warning for all those who haven´t seen it yet to avoid it at all cost! I loved Howard Ziehm´s great original from 1972, which is an undisputed classic of sleazy cinema in my eyes, but this nasty sequel is only extremely boring, extremely stupid and extremely disgusting! Some scenes are really alright like the take in the G-Spot Café, however too many stuff in this film makes you ask yourself with you´re wasting your precious time on such a load of rubbish! The anti-climax is when a nutty professor and a dumb chick flight with their spaceship through a field of farting (!!!) meteors or title hero Flesh Gordon gets attacked by feces-monsters... Can it be worser?!? Tough task I think! Costumes (What costumes?!?) and special F/X are so miserable that every Troma-production looks like a Jerry Bruckheimer-film in comparison! If you want to see Melissa Mound´s boobs buy a Hot Score magazine instead! "Flesh Gordon 2" is a cheek!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Rotten Sequal

4/10
Author: filmbuff1970 from United Kingdom
24 May 2002

I saw the movie at a Midnight Show.what a mistake that was.this is so unfunny.This movie was made about 15 years too late.The movie is cheap tacky but so badly done.it has nothing to redeem it.comedys are rarely this boring.1 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Little Plot and Disgusting as South Park

3/10
Author: Baldach from Mesa, AZ
10 June 2002

If you wonder where the creators of South Park get their toilet humor here is a good place to look. Flesh Gordon is sexually perverted satire of Flash Gordon. Flesh Gordon will bascially have sex with anything that is a female adult (notice I did not mention human). I thought some of the scences where Flesh and the Professor were chasing the kidnappers of the cheerleaders were funny. However parts were Flesh goes into the bowels of a planet and find giant talking feces was just plan disgusting for me. If you can take satire or crude humor do not watch this movie other wise you have been warned.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

The artistic dearth of the eighties

5/10
Author: (eldraque@email.com) from Surrey, B.C.
29 May 2003

This movie is a telling example of a few elements in cinema. The first concerns a repellent visual aspect that is smeared over the surface of films from the eighties. The bloated, right-wing, self-indulgent mainstream aesthetic of that decade manifested itself into ubiquitous mullet hairstyles for men and women, glaring neon decorations and shallow production standards. Even in the visual effects department, the original 'Flesh Gordon' from the seventies is more advanced. The sexual campiness of the seventies also keeled over and died not long after the neo-conservative putsch. In this film, sexual interaction is more likely to a slapped down cold by some frigid mongrel than allowed to progress. And this is supposed to be softcore?

Finally, I recognized the nearby (for me) city of Vancouver B.C. during several outdoor scenes. I suspect that productions such as this one set into motion a stubborn trend of Hollywood exporting sub-standard trash to its northern cousin, forcing us to carry the burden of being an irrelevant cultural backwater. Needless to say, this film only depressed me.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 2:[1] [2]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history