IMDb > BATFXXX: Dark Night Parody (2010) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
BATFXXX: Dark Night Parody (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 1 reviews in total 

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Awful movie, and not because it's porn.

1/10
Author: teryolaw
30 January 2012

There is nothing but group sex scenes in this movie. Huge orgies where 10 people are having sex at once, it is completely awful because how are you supposed to get into the movie and the fantasy of it all when they keep changing the cameras and the focus on the girl? The whole point of a superhero porn parody is that it's something that fans of the original have always thought/fantasized about. How are you supposed to fantasize about having sex with Catwoman when there are 10 other people in the room that the camera is constantly changing around with? It leaves no room for the viewer to build himself into this fantasy that he is watching.

Orgies is a particular fetish and it just makes no sense to do a porn parody about something general which most people would like to see and turn it into an orgy flick. That would be like making a Superman porn parody where there is only urine sex. It makes no sense to the concept. It doesn't matter how much they spent on special effects and the good-looking sets, the fact that his is an orgy movie ruins everything. You can't masturbate to this unless you have the particular fetish for orgies.

Not to mention that the guy who plays the Joker is just extremely aggravating to watch because he does a terrible job at it. And I do not think that it is unreasonable at all to ask for a little quality on the actors when we are talking about a porn parody here, just because it's porn doesn't mean that it has to be low budget and without any feeling. Just because it's porn doesn't mean that it should get away with being half-assed when it's a matter of a high-budget parody. I have seen people on YOUTUBE who have done much better impersonations of the Joker.

Paul Chaplin comes off as obnoxious, not because he plays the "bad guy" but because he is such a horrible actor that watching him makes you angry. They could spend massive amount of cash on costumes, the set, the CGI - But they couldn't even be bothered to find decent actors? They would have been better off using a stunt double for the sex scenes rather then using this guy - No matter how cheesy that looks.

Might I add that he is the producer and driving force behind this movie, which to me only shows that he is more interested in fulfilling his own fantasy then trying to make a movie that is actually good. Because obviously he doesn't have the self distance to realize that he is a terrible actor.

All in all, I am very disappointed in this movie because it had all the potential to be good. The stars are delicious, Nick Manning as Batman is a genius move and the costumes and sets are great. But due to poor management, this movie is a flop. I could have made something better myself. And that upsets me.

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Ratings Awards External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history