Reviews written by registered user
Tito-8

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 40:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
394 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Barely qualifies as a movie, 11 April 2016
2/10

I briefly considered checking off the "Contains spoiler" box before submitting this review, but honestly, there's nothing here to spoil. Basically, a doofus named Wally spies on some topless women, and a female vampire shows up a few times to say "lesbians" over and over in a thick accent. That's pretty much the whole plot. John Paul Fedele hams it up as Wally, but he wasn't that all funny, so really the only thing this "movie" (and at 55 minutes, I use the term "movie" very loosely) had going for it was nudity. And while this mess has oodles of toplessness from a generally attractive cast, it's simply not enough to keep me entertained for very long.

All movies get one star on the IMDb. I'll give this one a second star for the skin on display -- with Tina Krause standing out as particularly fetching. Otherwise, this film is utterly worthless.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Nothing to cheer about, 7 April 2016
2/10

About the only good thing that I can say about this movie is that it wasn't horribly boring. Faint praise, to be sure, but that's really the best I could come up with. The storyline is slight, there's too much pointless filler, and the jokes consistently miss the mark. I didn't even know the names of the lead characters by the end of the movie, which is a pretty good indication of how uninteresting this was. And while the cast is moderately attractive, there's nowhere near as much skin as you might otherwise expect in a movie with such a tawdry-sounding title. No, I wasn't expecting anything great, or even all that good -- after all, Chuck Vincent wrote this -- but even by the low standards set by previous movies with "cheerleader" in the title, this film really misses the mark.

Recruits (1986)
Typical Rafal Zielinski fare, 24 February 2016
3/10

I keep watching Rafal Zielinski's 1980s T&A comedies even though I readily acknowledge that they aren't very good. They all seem to have a hard-to-explain likability to them even though the jokes consistently miss the mark and there isn't much to enjoy about them except for bare female flesh and a nostalgia factor if you're a child of the 80s.

In Recruits, the characters we are supposed to like are actually somewhat likable, which is not generally the case in Zielinski's films. As in all of Zielinski's efforts, the cast seems to be having a good time and they aren't taking their roles too seriously. And from a purely superficial perspective, there's plenty of attractive nude skin on display, most notably from Lolita Davidovich.

Unfortunately, the film simply isn't funny, which is obviously a fatal flaw for a comedy. Had I watched this movie when I was 13, or before the internet made nudity a click away, I might have enjoyed the over-the-top slapstick combined with copious amounts of nudity. But at three times that age, the proceedings got old pretty quick.

Worth watching if 80s sex comedies make you nostalgic. Otherwise, I suggest you pass on this one.

Pandora Peaks (2001) (V)
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
For Meyer completists only, 24 August 2011
2/10

Extremely similar to Russ Meyer's abysmal 'Mondo Topless' some 30+ years earlier, there's not a hint of a plot in this film, and even the rampant nudity gets redundant after a while. Pandora Peaks fills the screen with her fit body (thanks to Trimax exercise equipment -- she actually shills for the company for almost two straight minutes!) and obviously enhanced breasts, and she tells moderately uninteresting stories while we get to look at everything she has to offer. If you prefer natural breasts, Hungarian Tundi appears in numerous clips that were apparently filmed more than a decade before the film was released. Russ Meyer, meanwhile, incessantly rambles on about various places in California (particularly in the desert) and Germany, and sophomoric sound effects routinely play whenever a pair of large breasts are unleashed on the screen.

Overall, it's easily one of Russ' worst efforts. His plot-driven films weren't always great, but at least they had more than big breasts and boring commentary. The frequent nudity MIGHT be enough to please teenaged boys, but in today's internet-driven world, I doubt it.

It's SLIGHTLY better than his nudie-cuties from 50 years ago, but that faint praise is the best that I can say about this mess.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Does this even count as a movie?, 28 September 2010
1/10

It's apparent after only a few minutes of watching this mess that the filmmakers just didn't care about the final product. Yes, I recognize that this film was meant as a soft core porn, and that engrossing plots rarely occur in this type of film, but this is simply a disaster from start to finish.

Occasionally, the film tries to be funny, but when a farting and defecating dinosaur is the comedic highlight, you know your film isn't funny. Slightly more often, we'll get some dialogue in an attempt to fake a plot. But the main reason for this type of movie is obviously the nudity and sex, and here, it fails, too.

Sure, there is frequent nudity from the generally unappealing cast, but the sex scenes are, to be very kind, weak. It's bizarre watching a film when the women are all so ready, willing, and experienced at on screen nudity, and then seem so hesitant to even touch each other. It's almost as if the cast was repulsed by one another, the simulated sex was so wholly unbelievable. Observing a breast exam would probably be more erotic than this.

So, if you're looking for lame fake sex featuring mediocre-looking women along with pitifully bad writing, acting, and comedy, this film is for you. Otherwise, do yourself a favor and watch a Surrender Cinema film next time you want soft porn. Admittedly, their plots are awful, too, but at least the women are attractive in their movies.

Model Lust (2003) (V)
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Positively dreadful, 20 May 2007
1/10

I hardly know where to begin in reviewing this mess, since it is awful in pretty much every conceivable way, but I'll give it a shot, in hopes of saving a few people from the pain that comes with watching this movie.

To start off, the storyline, about a young woman who comes to Hollywood and is quickly thrust into modeling before becoming an unlikely spy, is both boring and absurd, and yet, it might be the least objectionable part of this train wreck. After all, this is a movie that on two separate occasions shows multiple minute flashbacks of scenes that concluded less than TEN minutes earlier. Admittedly, it was difficult staying awake throughout this disaster at times, but unless you have the memory span of a goldfish, I don't believe that they really needed to replay ENTIRE scenes within minutes of them originally occurring in the first place -- this merely serves to confirm just how thin this movie really is. As for the dialogue, well, it cripples an already silly story, and many of the lines are mangled by the "acting", particularly by lead actress Juliana Kincaid. It would be charitable to say that her acting skills are amateurish, and that's even by porn actress standards (and all of the ladies in this film are porn veterans, by the way). Which leads me to my final complaint about the movie -- the women. Quite simply, if you're watching this movie, you're likely watching it to see some skin, and with the exception of Mary Carey, I didn't even like the way these women LOOKED. Sure, it's a shallow comment, and a matter of personal preference, but if you like curvy women in your softcore, this movie will prove to be a disappointment.

On a final note, I know that there are some movie watchers (myself included) who like to watch horrible films in hopes of finding one that's "so bad, it's good". This isn't even one of those movies. This is a film that is so bad, you'll find yourself shaking your head in disbelief at the on-screen idiocy every few minutes, and checking your watch at least as often. This movie is nothing more than mind-numbing, life-wasting garbage.

Back Woods (2001) (V)
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Indescribably bad, 9 July 2006
1/10

You can put me in the group of viewers (or more accurately, victims) who watched this film in awe of the sheer stupidity that was unfolding before my eyes. Unless you're a friend or family member of someone involved in the film's production, I cannot fathom how anyone could enjoy this movie on any level. And no, this has little to do with the micro-budget, since I've certainly watched good movies that were made on a shoestring. It has to do with the utter lack of talent involved in the writing, acting and shooting of this mess. I don't think it was ever intended to be scary, since it's so ridiculous, but even as a parody, or send-up, or whatever they were trying to create, it fails spectacularly. This is EASILY one of the ten worst movies that I've ever seen, and watching this film is probably about as painful as giving birth was for Luther's mama.

Fish Heads (1980)
6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Memorable, 14 April 2002

Without question, this is one timeless and unforgettable music video. Even though it's been years since I last saw it, I still remember every single word of the song, no doubt because I watched the video so frequently back when I was a young teenager. Now, admittedly, part of my love for this video is a result of the first time I saw it (when I laughed hysterically through the entire thing), but even as an adult, when I think of the silly lyrics and unusual visuals, it still puts a smile on my face.

College (1927)
2 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Not impressed by my first silent film..., 28 January 2001
4/10

This is the first silent film that I've ever seen, and I enjoyed it as much as I thought I would, which is to say, not very much. With the absence of dialogue, enjoyment of this film depends solely on whether or not you find Buster Keaton's physical comedy to be funny. And while I recognize that the man had an incredible knack for making these physical scenes, the gags weren't funny. In fact, I didn't laugh once during this whole movie. Now, I won't judge all silent films by this feature, and I will actually check out more of Keaton's movies, because I certainly can recognize his talents. But "College", even with Buster Keaton, is a mediocre movie.

Arthur (1981)
11 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly, dreadful, 28 January 2001
2/10

I fully expected to enjoy this movie when I finally saw it for the first time a month ago. Instead, I watched one of the worst mainstream comedies that I've EVER seen. I never laughed once, and I became bored less than halfway through the movie. Perhaps my biggest problem with this film involved the characters. I mean, the ones that we're SUPPOSED to like included a raging alcoholic, a shoplifter, and a snobby butler. Still, the movie could have been a success if they had been involved in humorous situations, or even if they had the occasional funny line. Unfortunately, this film is nowhere near as funny as the title character thinks he is.


Page 1 of 40:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]