Reviews written by registered user

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]
391 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

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

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

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

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

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

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 21 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly, dreadful, 28 January 2001

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.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Excellent animated short, 14 November 2000

This gem of an animated short shows us what can go wrong when you forget to clear the snow and ice off of your stairs. A funny, nicely animated, wonderfully narrated short, and it's easy to see why it won an Oscar. A typically outstanding feature from Canada's National Film Board.

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Boring and uneventful movie, 28 October 2000

I had VERY low expectations for this film, and it narrowly managed to exceed them. Instead of being mind-numbingly dull, it was simply dull, and instead of being thoroughly uninteresting, it was only moderately uninteresting. That's about as positive I can be in reviewing this movie. It's slow-moving, low on dialogue, and it lacks interesting characters and scenes. Simply a waste of my time, and I urge you all to not make the same mistake that I did by watching this film.

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Watch it, even if you hate wrestling, 28 October 2000

This great documentary goes behind the scenes and shows us a side of wrestling that we rarely get to see. In particular, it focuses on three legendary wrestlers, and their stories should provoke a wide range of emotions from every viewer. There are other stories as well, but these were generally much less interesting, and the film works best when the focus is on Mick Foley, Terry Funk, or Jake Roberts. Their stories were all compelling, and wrestling-haters who are usually so quick to dismiss this business as "fake" should take a look at this movie and see just how real it can be.

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