Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Who ya gonna call? Male-Bashers!
As a rule, I really just generally dislike remakes. There's never any good reason for them. They always remake a movie that is good (if not a total classic), never one that was bad. It rarely adds anything new that is worthwhile. In general it is what 95% of all remakes are: A cash-grab. This new "Ghostbusters," however, doesn't even try to attain that lowly standard.
The plot is basically the set up of the original, with a group of female (as opposed to male) scientists, as they battle the supernatural and public perceptions. There is cameos galore here, too, as they try to play up to the long-time Ghostbuster fans. But ultimately, it all feels disrespectful to the original version.
I've never found Melissa McCarthy very funny. She's the stereotypical Chris Farley, fat, loud-mouth style of comedian, only less "charming" than he was at it. Here she does her usual shtick, only trying to pretend she's really brainy while doing it. It works as well for me as it has in every other movie she's done this in (which is pretty much most of her career), that is it wore on me very quickly and just kept getting progressively worse. Then you have the SNL brigade of Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, both who remind you why they are known for SNL and not great cinema experiences. McKinnon spends pretty much the entire movie mugging for the camera, even in scenes where she isn't the focus or that it is even appropriate in. Meanwhile, Jones gets to play every black stereotype you've seen in films like "Friday." Loud, obnoxious, foul-mouthed, and belligerent. They would do better to stick to television, as they show why they are "not-ready-for-prime-time players" here in spades. I guess I shouldn't forget Kristen Wiig's character, but her performance is so forgettable here that it's hard to not do so.
The only person to bring even a few laughs (which are few and far in-between in this film), is Chris Hemsworth as the ditsy male secretary. He makes the most of what his limited character can do. It's quite a departure from his turn as the "God of Thunder" in Marvel's "Avengers" films, that is for sure. And in all the various cameos I mentioned before, none of them really stands out in any good way. Most feel shoehorned in. Bill Murray looks like he wants to get the hell out of there and I don't blame him.
The CGI effects aren't any great shakes, either. The big battle sequences, near the films end, has the ladies looking like they are paying more attention to the green screen they are really standing next to, rather than facing such horrors of monstrous ghosts rampaging the city. The 1984 film, with its puppets, looked less phony and less dated, than the CGI here does.
Paul Feig, who directed and co-wrote this travesty, shows he not only has no respect for the source material and original film, but no respect for men at all. Every male character, every single one, is either inept, a creep, or the butt of a joke. I suppose this is his version of "girl power," by humiliating every man in the film to make the women seem superior to them. It's just a pathetic misandrist display, that only betrays Feig's own prejudices. Nothing more. They could have renamed the film "Male Bashers" and it would not only have been completely appropriate, but more accurate. The final battle scene has the "Busters" stop the male monster, by shooting it in the crotch. Ho-ho, ha-ha, what a blow for "women's equality," huh? Never mind that doing so, isn't just done out of spite for men, but even goes against the plot of their own story, where they state earlier in the film that proton packs only hold ghosts in stasis, until they can be put in a containment unit. But who cares about story consistency? We got us some men to belittle! This film and how it was done, has only made me see Feig as a small and petty man. He should rightfully be laughed right out of the movie business after this train wreck (even though, sadly, I know he likely won't be).
The only thing this pathetic remake did, was to show the true agenda of the filmmakers. And it wasn't to make a fun and action-packed blockbuster. It wasn't to make a respectful update to a classic film. It wasn't even to make an entertaining effort. It was a blatant gut-punch to males and those who loved the original film. That's all. They say it was to show "women empowerment," but they seem to think that can only be achieved by tearing down and belittling men. That's more sexist towards women, than anything I can think of. The cast deserved better than this. The fans of the original GBs and the rest of the viewing audience DEFINITELY deserved better. The best thing anyone can do, is not waste their money on this stinking turd! Take your kids to see "The Secret Life of Pets," or hold off until the next Star Trek film. To reward this utter garbage with your money is only to embolden the filmmakers and the studio to produce more trash like this. And that is something all of us, be we male or female, can do without! This film is an embarrassment to movies, remakes, "women's empowerment," basically everything it tried to be. I'd say the only place for this putrid pile of male bashing is the city dump, but even the rats and seagulls deserve better than that!
Ssssslow, Ssssstiff, and Ssssstale!
The fear of snakes is one that goes right to the core of our human nature. Creepy-crawlers, who slither and hiss, will always invoke a visceral reaction. So, when you watch a film like "Sssssss" and your reaction is to yawn, you know things are not working.
The story revolves around a less-than-sane doctor (played by Strother Martin), with a more-than-healthy fascination with snakes, who uses his lab assistant (played by a very young Dirk Benedict) in an experiment to turn a human into a snake. Albeit, without the assistant's knowledge.
The premise seems sound enough, even if a bit hokey. But it is so badly developed and delivered, that it lacks any of the scares or dramatic punch that some 70's kitsch should have. The reasoning behind the doctor doing this is never made very clear. His motivation almost feels like an afterthought, once it is revealed. There's a romance with the doctor's daughter (played by Heather Menzies-Urich, who is named as Heather Menzies here) and the assistant, which never really goes anywhere. Even when the doctor forbids it, you never really get the sense that any of it means anything, as it all come to nothing. There the stereotypical bully jock and snooty colleague, which the doctor does in with some snakes, but neither of these deaths brings any real scares. All the while, the story just plods along and you never really care. And in the end, the doctor is done in by his own stupidity and the assistant suffers a fate we are left to never know, as the ending of the film, with the daughter screaming in horror, is as perplexing as it is abrupt.
There really isn't a lot here to give you any real sense of dread or fear. The snake handling in the film, as almost all the scenes of them were of actual real snakes, is a bit interesting at times. And the doctor's "dance" with a king cobra is probably the best scene in the film. But even Dirk Benedict's performance can't save this turd (although, since this in one of his first acting gigs, he might not have developed the roguish charisma we've come to know and love from him).
In the end, "Sssssss" is all hiss and no bite. It's hard to believe anyone was actually scared by this in 1973, much less that anyone today would be. It's harmless fare, that anyone over the age of five could never see as frightening, but which is ultimately pointless and disappointing. You'd get more chills watching the snakes in your local zoo. In short, this film Sssssssucks!
It's entertainment value that is the mirage here!
When you go into a schlocky film like this, done by one of the masters of such, like Jess Franco, you need to tailor your expectations. But with this boring and muddled mess of a movie, you need to remove all desire to see anything even remotely entertaining.
The story revolves around a shipment of Nazi gold, lost in a desert oasis during the war. Now three groups of people seek out the hidden oasis when it might be found, only to learn that the area has now become a cursed place, where the undead rise to protect their gold from any trespassers!
The premise is pretty hokey, but it still had the potential for some b-grade cheesy fun. Sadly, that doesn't happen. Badly edited and dubbed, you never come to care anything for any of the characters. From the former soldier who was there at the first battle and seeks to reclaim the gold, to the grandson of the sheik who knows the secret location of the oasis, to the professor and his students looking to find scholastic glory in the endeavor, you never come to care about any of them. None of the performances are memorable or even interesting. They seemed to almost sleepwalk through the scenes.
The insipid script gives you nothing to really hold your interest, either. The story of the grandson, learning of his true origins with the sheik, are built up in the first half of the film, only to be abandoned in the second half. So much wasted potential. And for a supposedly "lost oasis," it seemed remarkably easy for all our groups to find. The whole plot is just a half-baked concept, that no one ever developed properly.
With this being a low-budget affair by Jess Franco, you'd think there would at least be decent gore and nudity to be found here. But flesh fiends and gore hounds will be supremely disappointed. There is only one small scene of nudity and the gore in the zombie attacks is almost non-existent. Even the zombies themselves are an uneven hodgepodge of special effects. Some look almost scary, while other are so obviously fake that it almost hurts! The one sequence in the whole mess that actually works, is the flashback to the battle at the oasis during the war. It is the singular bright spot in an otherwise dismal effort from all parties involved.
Low budget horror films, especially older ones like this, are usually a mixed bag that you need to take with a grain of salt to enjoy. But you'd need a grain of salt the size of a Utah salt mine to do so with this stinker. In the world of zombie films, this clunker has to be near the bottom of the barrel (and easily one of the worst films Franco has his name attached to). The best place for it is to be lost in that desert oasis, along with the gold. That way, no one else will have to suffer through this turd, like I did!
Terminator Genisys (2015)
Terminator 5: A Twist In Time!
When a franchise is reaching for it's fifth entry in the series, you usually expect it to be sucked dry of any interesting twists or dimensions. Terminator Genisys avoids that, by using the time travel aspect and mixing things up from how we all know the well-worn plot to go. It makes for some fun and entertaining movie magic, for a property we all thought had no juice left in it.
Things all start as we know it before, with John Connor sending Kyle Reese (his father, who doesn't know he's his father yet) back in time to save his mother. But when Skynet jumps the gun and alters things at the moment of Kyle's time trip, what we thought we knew is no longer so. Kyle lands in the past to save Sarah Connor, only to learn that she doesn't need his saving and that everything has changed. They soon travel into the future to put an end to Skynet for good, only to find that Skynet's newest assassin is the last person they would expect! Will they be able to overcome someone they trusted and stop Skynet, or does this spell the final doom for all humanity?
It was a lot of fun with the twists made in time, as you got to see scene that were familiar, yet also changed and different. It added a level of excitement, as you weren't sure what was going to happen next, much like in the first film. Arnold is back in the role that made him a superstar, although he didn't do as much of the physical stuff as in times past. It was nice to see him go up against himself in his prime, though. Emilia Clarke was great as Sarah, even managing to give some looks and reactions that straight up reminded me of Linda Hamilton. But this Sarah isn't as hard as Hamilton's became and is much more brooding in the fact she feels little control over her fate. A nice change from the Sarah we knew. Jason Clarke was adequate as John Connor. If nothing else he washed the bad taste out of my mouth that Christian Bale left with his turn as the character in Terminator Salvation (for which I am ever so thankful). Lastly, Jai Courtney had the unenviable task of filling the role Michael Biehn made a staple of the series. He does his best, but he lacked the cool intensity that Kyle Reese had. Of all the characters, his was the one that should have had the least amount of change, which only makes an unenviable task of playing him all the more difficult.
Overall the performances are fine. While certainly not as great as some past outings, they hold their own against characters that have become icons to us. The action sequences are pretty good (if a bit subdued, mostly due to Arnold's age) and there are some nice twists on themes throughout the proceedings, as we watch everything that we know was changed come to fruition. If I had any real qualms, it was at the end with the footage during the credits. I know the desire to keep the franchise going is strong, but I'd rather this be the end and let it go out on a good note, rather than run it into the ground with more sequels.
Terminator Genisys doesn't reinvent the wheel, so much as it contorts it so you don't realize it is the same wheel. It will never top the first two films, but then I doubt anything ever could. It does have enough action and plot twists to keep you guessing and entertained. It's a good, fun time at the movies! And isn't that what is most important?
Nude Nuns with Big Guns (2010)
There's "Nun" Deadlier!
I have to say, of the many sub-genres in the realm of exploitation film, "Nunsploitation" is probably one of the ones I'm least familiar with. That said, however, I can always tell when a film is out to simply just have a good time. This one certainly qualifies for that!
The story is about the revenge of Sister Sarah who, after becoming a nun, is forced into a life of degradation and depravity. Used as a drug mule and later as sex slave, she is left for dead by her tormentors. But this is one nun that will see penance done, as she exacts her violent and bloody revenge!
Right off, the film is not for those who are deeply religious (especially Catholic). It's view of the church as a source of evil and corruption, will certainly offend any devotedly religious people, which I'm sure is part of the point. That aside, all the main tenants of great exploitation films are on display: sex, revenge, violence, drugs, and depravity. It hits all the notes any classic Grindhouse film of yore would do and then some.
Director/Producer Joseph Guzman knows what people expect in an exploitation film and makes sure to deliver it in great quantity. There isn't a single character that is not completely irredeemable here. Sister Sarah (played quite effectively by Asun Ortega) is a stone cold and heartless killer. She wastes no time in dispatching her prey in the most violent manner she can. The sequence in the whore house, when she ruthlessly guns down the people in each room with a tommy-gun, pretty much sums up her character. There is one scene near the end, which I won't give away here, that will make every guy watching wince. You'll know it when you see it! The film also has quite a bit of nudity and lesbian action, so flesh fiends are well-represented here, as well. I mean, these nuns spend more time out of their habits than in them (a sure sign of quality exploitation filmmaking)! The dialogue is corny as hell, no pun intended! One scene even has our main villain (played by David Castro) state to his men that they are "the bad guys." Much of it is mockable fun, but some of it is very cringe-worthy in the delivery. If I had any real problem with the story at all, it's that we don't get a good enough back-story. Most of what you need to know is played during the credits, so you definitely have to be watching right from the start, and it's very brief. Perhaps a bit too brief. A little more build-up and understanding of why Sister Sarah becomes so bent on revenge, would seem to be a very needed component. The speed they gloss over that at does the film no favors.
"Nude Nuns with Big Guns" amply lives up to its title. It very straight-forwardly gives you the blasphemous sleaze-ride you would expect of a film with such a name. It does a fair job of emulating classic 70's style Grindhouse films, without being too polished or overly self-aware about it. It's just good old dirty fun! And it certainly has me wanting to make a "habit" of watching more "Nunsploitation" films in the future, too. Hallelujah!
The Pit (1981)
Who wouldn't love a story about a boy and his monsters?
Being a fan of both horror and grindhouse films, I've seen more than my share of strange movies. And while I won't go so far as to say "The Pit" tops them all, it is certainly high up the totem pole of weirdness.
The story revolves around a young boy named Jamie (played by Sammy Snyders), who is an odd sort of kid. Ostracized by the other kids, and even some of the adults, because of his unusual behavior, he finds friendship with his teddy bear (who speaks to him) and a small group of creatures that dwell in a nearby pit. But when he finds out what their diet consists of, all those who haven't been nice to Jamie end up finding themselves on the menu!
Almost from the start, the film has a very eerie and creepy tone to it. Jamie's erratic behavior tells you there is something not quite right here. Sammy Snyders really does a superlative job in portraying Jamie as a strange outsider. He's alone in his own little world and he has no problem with it at all. It's all the "normal people" who bug him. But when his crush on the babysitter, Sandy (played by Jeannie Elias), is threatened by her seeing him as just a kid and wanting to be with other men, eerie takes a turn into the outlandish. Unfortunately, how that is presented to us isn't always on an even keel. Jamie's luring his "foes" to the pit to feed them to his "friends," ranges from the scary (like what he does to the bully and his girlfriend) to the unintentionally hilarious (like how he handles the blind woman in a wheelchair). But for the first two acts, things remain coherent an entertaining, even if a bit rough in the execution. But at the end of the second act, with the death of Sandy, things go completely off the rails.
The last act of the film is almost a hodgepodge of situations, that often don't show how they are connected or even make much sense. The police investigating the disappearance of those Jamie has fed to the trolls, is absolutely ridiculous. To call it "keystone cops work," would be to insult incompetent police. Then, Jamie lets the creatures loose, but they don't go far or do very much. The mass slaughter of them is very anti-climactic, to say the least. And the end, where Jamie goes to live with his grandparents and we see his ultimate fate, just comes completely out of left field. What happened to his parents? Why didn't he move with them to Seattle? Was "Teddy's" voice only in Jamie's head or was there something else at work? And how many other pits full of these creatures are there? All questions to which we never get the answers. It's like the director just didn't know how to end it, so they just filled the last 20-25 minutes with pointless scenes that go nowhere and have no rhyme or reason. It drags down the film's enjoyment a bit and leaves you with a less than satisfying feeling, even though the rest of it has been interesting and entertaining.
As I said, "The Pit" is certainly among one of the most peculiar films I've seen, if not the most peculiar. And while the final act is a cluttered and disappointing jumble, the film's first two acts are engaging and it does keep you entertained throughout its 97 minute run time (something you can't say about many other "normal" horror films). I'd mildly recommend this for horror fans looking for a less-than-usual experience, due to its off-the-wall style and format. It is certainly one of the most unique specimens in the annals of horror cinema, that I have ever come across.
Too dry to be satire, too corny to be serious.
The cause of feminism was a big one in the 70's and Hollywood is always one who'll gladly try to cash-in on any cause-du-jour. It's too bad that "Superchick" does such a lackluster job in doing that.
Perennial t.v. guest star, Joyce Jillson, plays "superchick" Tara B. True. She's the ultimate swinging 70's icon of the modern woman. A stewardess by trade, she has men in every port of call and never passes up the fun of a good time. But when one of her beaus gets her involved with a plot to hijack her flight, she busts out some heavy-duty karate action to stop them!
With a plot that preposterous, you'd think there's a lot of funny hijinks to be had. You'd be wrong. This exploitation sex comedy never really gets out of first gear. Most of the attempts at humor just don't work. What is passed off as clever and hip, is actually just boring and tedious. A scene where Tara almost gets busted at a pot party, is a prime example. She tries to play an innocent act, but it's so over the top ridiculous that you think she'd get arrested for bad overacting. A lot of the humor in the film ends up the same way. One of the rare moments it doesn't, is the scene with the flasher (played by Gus Peters). It's one of the very few moments that will actually bring a chuckle or two. Sadly, moments like that are very few and far in-between. Pretty much a kiss of death for a film of this kind. But the problems here don't just rest with an unfunny script.
Most of the actors just don't get to develop any connection with the audience. To call them ciphers to "Superchick" would be to insult non-entities everywhere. Even such well-known quantities, like Uschi Digard playing a lesbian porn star and John Carradine as a perverted has-been horror actor, look to be just phoning it in. There's no spark or interest in any of the performances at all. And for a film that is rooted in the "sexploitation" genre, there is very little in the way of nudity presented (with most of that given by Uschi Digard in one single scene). It's a sexploitation film with very little of a sexual component to it. Many PG-13 films today have more raunchiness to them. And as for the plane hijacking plot, by the time we reach the climax of that, your interest is likely to have wandered into thinking about anything else. Even the karate fight lacks any punch.
"Superchick" not only fails to be a funny satire spoof of the modern 70's feminist, but it fails at being a fun and sleazy exploitation film. Basically, it fails to do what it was likely intended to do. There's too little depravity and bawdiness for it to work as a sexploitation film, and too much contrived hokeyness for it to be truly funny. There's little here to recommend anyone check this out, even genre fans. There's lots of other films of this type that do a much better job with this kind of material. You should seek those out over this decidedly "un-super" flop!
Les lâches vivent d'espoir (1961)
Serious subject matter, that is marred by amateurish execution!
The subject of race and sexual relationships is even a hot button topic in our world today, so it was probably almost taboo to broach the subject in the 1960's. Yet, that is what this little French films tries to do. And I stress "tries," because the inept way the subject matter is handled ruins what could have been an interesting and thoughtful drama on the issue.
The story revolves around a young French woman named Françoise (played by Françoise Giret) who falls in love with a black man named Daniel (played by Gordon Heath), as she is forced to deal with some of the unsavory complications interracial coupling brings in the 1960's.
As I said, it is some very heavy subject matter to explore. That's why it is such a shame that very little exploring is actually done on it. Oh, there is a lot of (dubbed in) talking about the struggles and strife interracial couples go through, but very little of it is actually shown until near the end of the film. Much like the college professor here (played by Aram Stephan) does in his class, it's all talk, talk, talk! We are rarely shown Françoise and Daniel actually dealing with the bigotry and racism they complain about and we would expect them to face. They spend much of the film walking around the city and in the bedroom, musing over what it means to be a black man in a white man's world, or how hard it is for an interracial love to survive in those modern times. In a film that is trying to tackle such serious themes, not showing very much of the conflicts within those themes shows an inexperience that borders on the insipid. Like someone telling you what it's like to be in love, without ever having been in love themselves, the film has no spark, heart, or soul. It makes a lot of sound, while knowing little of what it is actually talking about.
Much of the rest of the film is spent watching unrelated material dealing with the bohemian group that Françoise and Daniel hangout with. It doesn't really add anything of real value to the story, but feels merely like filler material to pad out the film's 77 minute run time. Some of the cinematography tries to play at an artsy feeling, some of which works (like a scene where Daniel is out walking in the snow) and some of which doesn't (like a close-up shot of their feet, when they come together for a meeting on a bridge). There really is little in the background elements that brings out any real interest, which only goes to reinforce the lack of interest in the main subject matter.
I'll give the filmmakers a couple points for trying to tackle what was a very touchy subject, both then and today. But the complete mishandling of that serious subject matter tarnishes any nobility in the points and issues they were trying to make. Their reach most certainly exceeded their grasp here. This could have been a very evocative drama of its time. Instead it's just a meandering bore, that talks more of a good game than it actually delivers. Unless you are looking for pointers on how NOT to tackle such material, you can easily give this one a pass!
Exterminator 2 (1984)
A pale and semi-violent shadow of its predecessor!
In the world of vigilante films, the Exterminator series can certainly hold its own against many others. But while having a fairly violent panache about it, "Exterminator 2" lacks some of the bits of grit and depth the original had.
In this sequel, Robert Ginty reprises his role as the ex-vet turned crime-killing vigilante. But when the Exterminator kills the brother of a revolutionary-minded gang leader, he'll find his private war on crime will become a lot more personal and costly!
Unlike the first film, this one is much more uneven in the delivery of the story. Some of the character relationships and connections are never properly developed. As a result, it lacks some of the raw emotion of the first film. Also, I missed having the point of view of the cop out to stop him. It was a dynamic that really helped to drive the drama and tension in the original. But here, no such dynamic exists. Writer/Director Mark Buntzman tries to fill such voids with the love story between the Exterminator and an exotic dancer with bigger dreams (played by Deborah Geffner), even to the point of putting in a less than necessary sex scene, perhaps to help punch up the exploitative and sleaze factors, but it just doesn't make the grade. Whereas the first film had more grit and complexity to it, this one never even gets close to anything like that. It's all a much more straight-forward affair, that doesn't try to go beyond being a b-grade action film.
That isn't to say there is nothing of enjoyment here. The film does have an ample amount of violence, as you would expect in a vigilante story. The opening scene in the liquor store and the Exterminator's "untimely" arrival is among the most visceral moments in the film and hearkens back a little to the original. Veteran character actor, Frankie Faison, fits in nicely as Ginty's "Man Friday." And Mario Van Peebles does all he can with the one-dimensional villain known simply as "X." The final cat-and-mouse battle between him and the Exterminator was very well done. The film does a decent job on the action stuff, which makes up a little, but not all, of the lacking in other areas the film has.
In a lot of ways, "Exterminator 2" falls into the pitfall many sequels do: They don't really give enough flavor to it, to make doing it feel like a worthwhile effort. It is just a pale and flame-scorched reflection of the original and it shows. It's not horrible, by any means, but it feels a little bland and formulaic. It lacks the depth and hardiness of the original. Genre fans will probably get some mild enjoyment from this outing. Otherwise, you are better off to stick with the first one. It is easily the better of the two!
The Beach Girls (1982)
Raunchy and campy fun, but forgotten as quickly as footprints in the sand!
The early 80's was a golden age for the teen sex comedy. It was a veritable cottage industry. Some were cute and clever, others were bland and boring. "The Beach Girls" falls somewhere in-between.
The plot revolves around three girls, who've just gotten out of school for the summer. Two of the girls are world-wise party-goers who attempt to loosen up their naive, virginal friend, as they stay at her uncle's beach house. It's non-stop partying, from picking up a middle-aged hitchhiker, to booze and drug fueled nights, the girls are gonna have fun! But what happens when the uncle finally shows up? Oh, the suspense is killing me!
Well, no, not really. Most of this stuff is by-the-numbers sex comedy formula. The jokes, the puns, the gags, are all pretty much the standard fare you'd expect. Debra Blee (who plays the virginal Sarah) is, oddly enough, more attractive than her two wild child friends (played by Val Kline and Jeana Keough), which was a nice little change from how most films like this go. But the hitchhiker who becomes Sarah's love interest (played by James Daughton), who is supposed to be a hip and laid back young musician-type, just looks too old to play this role. It's one of the ways the film misfires and takes you out of the moment. The scene where a young cop shows up during the party and almost immediately gets sucked into the shenanigans is another example of that. It just comes off as silly and forced, taking you out of the story, which might be the point, but the tongue-in-cheek humor just isn't delivered convincingly enough for you not to notice it. And the whole sub-plot, involving the drug smugglers and Coast Guard just feels completely out of place. And lastly, Sarah's transformation from "upright do-right," to femme fatale, happens so fast, you might get whiplash as you watch it.
That isn't to say the film doesn't have some good points. The film has a nice bit of skin on display, so flesh fiends will get what they crave. The debauchery is certainly wild and crazy throughout the film, with a few raunchy scenes to spice things up more. The Coast Guard's raid near the film's end, as they go through the house to uncover where all the drugs have been hidden, is chuckle-worthy. And there is some great comic relief with the gardener (played by Bert Rosario) throughout the film and it gets especially good when he gets teamed up with the limo driver (played by George Cheung). Their antics in a fight sequences are actually pretty funny.
In the final analysis, "The Beach Girls" is a mediocre effort, that never tries to play up that it is anything more than a teen sex comedy. It's lack of pretentiousness about itself gives it a certain amount charm. But it is very repetitive and the jokes and gags wear a little thin by the end. The misfires grow as the film goes on, but it never takes anything too seriously. And that might be why it isn't more enjoyable. It's a fluffy and light-hearted 80's romp, to be sure, and fans of cult classic 80's cheese might enjoy this, but it isn't one that will stick with you after you've viewed it. Just like footprints in the sand, the film's impression is not one that will last for long. Much like how summer never does!