If you're looking for something weird, experimental, bizarre, this is the movie for you.
Yup, it's one of those. For better or worse. (Usually worse.)
But because it isn't a Czech, Spanish or French experiment at least you know there's a decent chance it isn't totally unwatchable, right? In fact, it was written/directed by a later SNL writer.
I can't stand SNL, just to mention that, sort of btw and all... Especially now they utterly stink, with all those useless millennial actors and writers. Though they used to be bad in the 70s too, despite the (mostly) good cast. That show never had much good material. They started off as a lame semi-imitation of Python, then degenerated into something even worse.
So a double-edged sword: on the one hand, the SNL connection means that this isn't some totally underground, utterly useless piece of trash made by a total hack hipster. On the other hand, if a "future" SNL writer made it then it can't be great either. And that's maybe why my rating turned out to be somewhere in the middle.
Somewhat uneven. There are interesting moments, even a laugh here and there (admittedly, they are rare), but for example the animated bits at the end are just awful, and things get annoying at times.
You'll be surprised at finding as many as 5-6 familiar faces, some of whom had been established before this movie. Unusual, given the XXX subject matter, the nudity, and the off-the-wall underground style. Jill Clayburgh is one of them, though this was well before she became an A-lister. She doesn't show any nudity, just to avoid getting yer hopes up, in case you like her... But there's plenty of nudity, most of it concentrated in the first third, which is excessively "arty" i.e. There's even less plot in this section.
Other than the bouncing breasts, there are several right-into-the camera monologues to be found in this semi-disconnected "story" with has a very basic "plot". The film combines a semi-documentary style with regular movie situations. They vary from semi-dumb to somewhat interesting, occasionally bizarre. Certainly an unusual way in which all of it is presented. Personally, I preferred any scene with Kennedy in it. But that's just me. She is amazing, and very fortunately she's the lead.
Basically, what it boils down is to is this: do you find Sarah Kennedy uber-cute and totally irresistible, as I do, or not. With some average or nothing-special actress in her place, I might have been too bored to finish this. But having her extraordinarily beautiful face all over the screen made it all so much easier. Her lovable, ditsy voice, that helped too. Her face is - vaguely speaking - a cross between the very young Goldie Hawn and even more so the Serbian actress Milena Dravic (a unique beauty).
Every now and then I discover (or am reminded of) a stunning actress (in one way or another stunning - or preferably all of the ways) that never made it big, and I get annoyed, because so many homely and/or despicable actresses have/had great careers, yet there are all of these undiscovered or barely known female gems that rot away in a few obscure films and/or TV appearances, and nothing else. I know that casting agents, producers and studio heads are nearly all a bunch of tasteless fools, absolute clowns, but it still doesn't excuse overlooking women such as Sarah.
Did she get lost in drugs or alcohol? Did she lose interest in acting? Find another career? Did she refuse the casting couch? Did she struggle memorizing her lines? What could possibly be the reason nobody tried to push this girl? Was she considered to be too "limited" in the sense of only playing "smiling ditsy trollops"? And how the hell is Jennifer Aniston any better than she is? Aniston is the personification of a charisma-free, one-dimensional "actress" with zero range. But, und das ist ein big but, she is a nepotist, and nepotism - above all else - opens doors in show-biz... Something Kennedy didn't have the benefit of.
No, of course she's not part of the Kennedy clan, otherwise she'd have starred in a ton of big-budget films.
Yup, it's one of those. For better or worse. (Usually worse.)
But because it isn't a Czech, Spanish or French experiment at least you know there's a decent chance it isn't totally unwatchable, right? In fact, it was written/directed by a later SNL writer.
I can't stand SNL, just to mention that, sort of btw and all... Especially now they utterly stink, with all those useless millennial actors and writers. Though they used to be bad in the 70s too, despite the (mostly) good cast. That show never had much good material. They started off as a lame semi-imitation of Python, then degenerated into something even worse.
So a double-edged sword: on the one hand, the SNL connection means that this isn't some totally underground, utterly useless piece of trash made by a total hack hipster. On the other hand, if a "future" SNL writer made it then it can't be great either. And that's maybe why my rating turned out to be somewhere in the middle.
Somewhat uneven. There are interesting moments, even a laugh here and there (admittedly, they are rare), but for example the animated bits at the end are just awful, and things get annoying at times.
You'll be surprised at finding as many as 5-6 familiar faces, some of whom had been established before this movie. Unusual, given the XXX subject matter, the nudity, and the off-the-wall underground style. Jill Clayburgh is one of them, though this was well before she became an A-lister. She doesn't show any nudity, just to avoid getting yer hopes up, in case you like her... But there's plenty of nudity, most of it concentrated in the first third, which is excessively "arty" i.e. There's even less plot in this section.
Other than the bouncing breasts, there are several right-into-the camera monologues to be found in this semi-disconnected "story" with has a very basic "plot". The film combines a semi-documentary style with regular movie situations. They vary from semi-dumb to somewhat interesting, occasionally bizarre. Certainly an unusual way in which all of it is presented. Personally, I preferred any scene with Kennedy in it. But that's just me. She is amazing, and very fortunately she's the lead.
Basically, what it boils down is to is this: do you find Sarah Kennedy uber-cute and totally irresistible, as I do, or not. With some average or nothing-special actress in her place, I might have been too bored to finish this. But having her extraordinarily beautiful face all over the screen made it all so much easier. Her lovable, ditsy voice, that helped too. Her face is - vaguely speaking - a cross between the very young Goldie Hawn and even more so the Serbian actress Milena Dravic (a unique beauty).
Every now and then I discover (or am reminded of) a stunning actress (in one way or another stunning - or preferably all of the ways) that never made it big, and I get annoyed, because so many homely and/or despicable actresses have/had great careers, yet there are all of these undiscovered or barely known female gems that rot away in a few obscure films and/or TV appearances, and nothing else. I know that casting agents, producers and studio heads are nearly all a bunch of tasteless fools, absolute clowns, but it still doesn't excuse overlooking women such as Sarah.
Did she get lost in drugs or alcohol? Did she lose interest in acting? Find another career? Did she refuse the casting couch? Did she struggle memorizing her lines? What could possibly be the reason nobody tried to push this girl? Was she considered to be too "limited" in the sense of only playing "smiling ditsy trollops"? And how the hell is Jennifer Aniston any better than she is? Aniston is the personification of a charisma-free, one-dimensional "actress" with zero range. But, und das ist ein big but, she is a nepotist, and nepotism - above all else - opens doors in show-biz... Something Kennedy didn't have the benefit of.
No, of course she's not part of the Kennedy clan, otherwise she'd have starred in a ton of big-budget films.