IMDb > Bubbles Galore (1996) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Bubbles Galore More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 9 reviews in total 

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

This movie is terrible!

1/10
Author: anonymous from Vancouver, Canada
3 July 1999

"Bubbles Galore" has got to be the most awful movie I've ever watched. On several occasions I was ready to leave the room, but I suffered through it. The movie may be labeled as a feminist sexual fantasy, but most feminists would probably shudder at the way woman are portrayed in this movie. "Bubbles Galore" presents a world where God is a hideous, sex-crazed exhibitionist who looks out for sex trade workers. There is virtually no plot at all -- the average full-fledged porn movie would have a better plot. Even though this is an XXX-spoof movie, the acting is still unjustifiably terrible and much of it was unwatchable. The overall style of film-making is misdirected and looks very unprofessional, even for a low-budget movie. "Bubbles Galore" is basically a very poorly made porn film without the hardcore content. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, even for people interested in the subject matter. It is a pure waste of time, and for a movie that was partially funded by the federal government, it is a waste of money as well.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Terrible......and the taxpayers paid for it!

1/10
Author: David Macdonald (my_notes@yahoo.com)
21 June 1999

This is without a doubt, one of the most tackiest films I've seen. It makes "Clerks" and similiar amateur films look as if they were directed by David Lean! And the worst part of it is that we Canadian tax-payers shelled out 125000 dollars for it. The film claims to be a feminist sex fantasy, detailing the issues surrounding pornography and women's place in it. In actuality, it is a hardcore porno film, with numerous bad actors, and many real, as opposed to simulated, sex scenes. The "message" seems to be window-dressing on such a non-story. The filmmaking itself is humurously inept, as it seems to be shot by somebody who just purchased a cheap home-video camera, and is just learning how to use it. At least Ed Wood had the good sense to use black-and-white film, which is about all that could make this film better. When the controversy broke over the fact taxpayers money was used to fund this film, I assumed the fuss was the mere fact the film dealt with the sex trade and pornography. I actually believed it was a serious film, knowing "of course, government art agencies wouldn't knowingly fund a xxx-film." Showcase cashed in on the fuss by airing it, uncut, on their late-night slot a few days ago, and the truth.... the film was a porno, after all. Apparently, the funders loved the premise so much they didn't bother to check on the final product. I bet they're embarrassed. The idea of a movie revolving around a female porn star is a great one. It would be a chance to study what sort of person she is, etc. But this movie lost that chance. And as a MOVIE, it fails big time.

For the first time in my life, I will give a movie less than one star! 1/2*

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst 'films' I've ever seen

1/10
Author: 23skidoo-4 from Calgary, Canada
19 February 2000

Bubbles Galore succeeds in recreating the 'amateur hour' atmosphere of many XXX-rated videos. But that's not saying much -- I've seen $1.98 porno vids with better production values, editing and acting than this piece of tripe. This film was made with the help of a Canadian government grant -- and the resulting controversy over Bubbles Galore means future filmmakers will probably have trouble getting funding in the future. Casting real-life porn star Nina Hartley in the lead, as well as porn star-turned-performance artist Annie Sprinkle as 'God' were good moves, but ultimately can't save this debacle. If Edward D. Wood, Jr. were still alive, he might have been able to do something worthwhile with this ... in his unique way.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

I paid my taxes for productions like this???

Author: BlackJack_B (bluethunder35@hotmail.com) from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
27 June 2002

I wonder why the Showcase Channel continues to air this "movie" occasionally. I guess they want to show what a XX movie is like as opposed to a X or XXX film. Personally, I consider it the first XX film ever made, and boy is it awful. It wouldn't even qualify as a cult film.

If it's a feminist film, it portrays women in a horrible manner (as well as men). If it portrays God as both man and woman (check what's under the arms...ewww), it fails miserably. If it's supposed to be porn, again it fails.

The plot, about a porno being filmed, and the ridiculous subplots involving the "stars" of the film, is just plain silly. Shot like a Russ Meyer film with quick edits, and given a "Natural Born Killers" style verite look; it fails to even amaze or anger. All we get to see are fake penises, sex toys, horrible choreographed fight scenes, lame sex scenes, awful dialogue and acting, and women who have the worst tanlines I've ever seen (tops and bottoms, or both). I wonder why these "exhibitionists" who make these kinds of films need to wear full bathing suits when getting a tan? Do we need to see these ladies in thongs when it clearly shows that they wear normal bathing suit bottoms at the tanning salon? Can't they at least be like France's women, who believe that a full tan is that more sexier? Oh, well...

The bottom line is that this movie is one of the worst ever made. Nina Hartley obviously spends every dime at the plastic surgeon and can't act to save her life, and the rest look like people just off the street. Fortunately, the government of Canada will make sure nothing like this hopefully gets produced again.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Good for a laugh if you're that kind of person

Author: the-lentzes from United States
17 August 2006

If you hear cheesy porn music and giggle, or crack a pizza boy joke every now and then, then this movie will probably make you laugh.

Don't look for plot, or acting ability, or anything that would generally make a movie good. Because this isn't a good movie. It's a stupidly funny semi-porn. If you can laugh at that, then it's worth watching. If you need it to be obviously funny, then you should watch Orgazmo and call it a night.

Consider that it's about a porn star's guardian angel. And that it's dedicated "To Working Girls Everywhere". And that it takes all of the stereotypes from porno and fills them full of fake body parts and even faker actors. Enjoying this movie requires an ability to laugh at absurdity, even if you think that maybe, just maybe, this was a serious attempt at some serious topic that you just can't grasp (there's no way it is, anyway).

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Avoid this film like the plague

1/10
Author: ibentmywookie from Toronto, Ontario
19 June 2000

I consider myself to be a liberal person. I consider myself to be a feminist. I also consider myself to be a great fan of Canadian film. But after watching this movie, for a *split second* it made me reconsider all my previous sentiments.

For once, I agree with the Reform party for their stance against this film. But I agree for entirely different reasons. The furor that was raised shouldn't have revolved around the "pornographic" content of the film; the furor should've been over the fact that this film was simply AWFUL. I'd rather sit through repeated viewings of "Hot Dog... The Movie" than ever subject myself to Bubbles Galore again.

Where exactly were the feminist ideals? The empowering message supposedly directed to women? The fact that Bubbles ran her own company? The fact that "God" was played by a woman? Was that it? Gee, I must've been distracted by the violent assault scenes, and Daniel MacIvor's grotesque prosthetic at the time...

And where exactly was the $320,000 (Cdn) spent on, in the film? It certainly wasn't on the production values. And it certainly wasn't on the badly-needed acting lessons needed for Ms. Hartley, et al. (Your lack of dramatic adeptness may well be forgiven in your usual skin flicks ladies, but it certainly didn't get you anywhere in this film...) For less than half the money, Canadian skin-auteur Bruce La Bruce would've been able to pull a film out of his hat which would've been ten times more clever and engaging. If the film makers were trying to re-capture the ambiance and depth of an old John C. Holmes flick, they certainly did a good job of it.

One of the more baffling things I found was the appearance of Canadian mainstays Tracy Wright, Daniel MacIvor, and film maker Peter Lynch in this film. They made the best of their roles, but the horrible script and dialogue was just too overwhelming. I was embarrassed to watch them, and I was embarrassed *for* them.

If you want to watch a really great little (Canadian) film about the porn scene, try to get your hands on a copy of Don McKellar's 1992 short film "Blue". The film takes a glimpse into the life of a porn addict (played wonderfully by famed director David Cronenberg). It's clever, engaging, funny, and totally worth your viewing time.

If you're the type who hasn't been desensitized to the representation and language of porn flicks, I strongly urge you not to waste your time watching Bubble Galore. It's not for everyone (say, 99% of the viewing public). As my friend had put it, she was left "traumatized" by the whole spectacle, and I really don't blame her. If you're the type who considers themselves to be a serious film fan, I also strongly urge you not to bother watching either. You'll be left infuriated, and feel a strong inclination to submit scathing critiques of the film to internet movie databases.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Horrible mess with redeeming qualities

5/10
Author: Tito-8 from North Bay, Ontario
16 July 1999

This is a film that has to be seen to be believed. Not only is it rather explicit at times, but the acting is poor, the story is practically incoherent, and the film is pretty much a mess. But even with all of these huge flaws, I almost liked this film. I mean, it is SO bad, that it is somewhat enjoyable, in a bizarre sort of way. If not for the thoroughly unappealing scenes with Annie Sprinkle, I might have even given this bomb a passing grade, as weird as it may sound. This is definitely not a film for most people, and it will probably offend almost everyone, but if you like seeing BAD movies, or if you like lots of female flesh, then perhaps this could be worth your time.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

The worst movie I have ever seen

1/10
Author: matt-182 from Hamilton, Ontario
3 January 2003

I have seen a lot of bad movies, but this is by far the worst I have seen. Horrible camera work, almost complete lack of plot and no sort of logical anchor at all, this movie painfully drags the viewer through an hour and a half of sex and mild violence without explaining anything. At the end of the movie the audience is left wondering what the heck happened, as the ending makes no sense and is just painful to watch as it is filmed with a bright but faded look to it, screeching drowning any dialogue attempted (not that any dialogue could have saved this movie, even at the beginning). Avoid this movie at all costs.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Go Nina(Bubbles)!

10/10
Author: visaman from Vancouver
15 April 2000

I love this country! Where else would various government agencies fund a raincoater.

To be fair, this is Nina Hartley's best work to date(if one overlooks her perfomance in Boogie Nights).

Women are making strives in the Adult film industry and are beginning to stretch their wings in this genre.

This is a strange film, a little violent and hard to follow at times, but slightly better than a Three's Company rerun.

Interestingly enough, Nina Robert's hasn't seen the film yet, and this film will never be realeased in the U.S.

This movie does have a fair bit of Canadian Content, enough I suppose to justify the grants,

This time Canada plays Canada for a change.

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

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