Body Chemistry (1990) User Reviews

Awfully derivative.

[gridoon · 5/10 · 17 October 1999]

The first 20 minutes of this picture are pure exploitation: soft-core sex scenes, surrounded by unbelievably blah dialogue. , and it feels awfully derivative. However, I have to admit that it's rarely boring and that it ends in a somewhat unconventional way.

Body Chemistry

[allmoviesfan · 5/10 · 7 April 2023]

A 1990 "Fatal Attraction" remake, with a lower budget, less attractive and less skilled actors and poorer writing and directing.

Honestly, there's very little to get excited about in this film. Even the sex scenes are pretty mundane and didn't really reach any great heights. I love a good 90's softcore movie as much - or maybe more - than the next person, but even I could barely get to the end. So much of this film seems to occur in murky darkness.

Hard to believe they made three sequels. I'll give them a go in the hopes that they will be better than the original (not that that's a high bar to clear, or anything) but I won't hold out much hope.

"Fatal Attraction" Redux

[G-Man-25 · 22 June 1999]

If you've seen "Fatal Attraction" and enjoyed it, here's another version of basically the same story-line. Even though the goings-on are somewhat familiar, credit director Kristine Peterson's stylish direction for putting a few interesting new twists on it. The movie is tight and suspenseful, with some VERY HOT sex scenes thrown into the mix. Lisa Pescia makes a chilling and formidable villain and is definitely an actress to watch in the future. A very well-done "B-Movie," worth checking out.

Totally Insipid

[shailley · 2/10 · 10 April 2002]

What a disappointment. Granted that this film belongs to a genre that is not really about very intellectual plots, but even then you do expect at least something out of the whole exercise of sitting through the movie. The actress who plays the "seductress" looks awful. And the sex scenes are amazingly unimaginative.

Does not offer anything new to the genre of getting ahead

[jordondave-28085 · 1/10 · 28 April 2023]

(1990) Body Chemistry ADULT DRAMA/ THRILLER

This is the first of 4 "Body Chemistry" movies, and I'm only reviewing the VHS copy of it, starring Marc Singer as family man, Tom Redding, who works as a sex researcher. And upon Tom meeting Dr. Claire Archer (Lisa Pescia) from Washington, he begins to have an extra-marital affair with her, for the intention of getting this important contract. After Tom gets his promotion, he then tries to ignore Claire to make amends with his wife, with expected results. This is like the more erotic version of "Fatal Attraction" as well as other films about employees trying to get ahead by sleeping around with their bosses, or in this case to get a particular contract. All I'm going to say is that, to see so much of these movies can get kind of tiring. Give this movie extra stars if this movie can turn you on. Bomb.

A Mixture of Sexual Tension and Violence

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 31 March 2017]

This movie begins with a happily married man named "Tom Redding" (Marc Singer) who works as a researcher studying sexual stimuli on the human body at a laboratory known as the Neurology Institute. One day he is called in to his supervisor's office and is handed a new project authored by a woman named "Dr. Claire Archer" (Lisa Pescia). Naturally, since the new project involves more revenue for the laboratory Tom is more than happy to lend whatever assistance he can. However, he soon learns that Dr. Archer has more on her mind than just research and the two of them soon begin to have a sexual relationship with one another. Although he initially believes that it is just a casual affair he soon realizes that it isn't as easy to break things off as he first thought. Likewise, he also doesn't quite fathom how emotionally unstable Dr. Archer can be when facing rejection. And that is when the trouble starts. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that I thought this was a rather interesting drama which benefited greatly from the performance of Lisa Pescia who managed to combine a certain amount of sexual tension with some dark and sinister overtones in the process. Admittedly, the subject matter isn't original but I believe it is definitely worth a watch for viewers who might be interested in a film of this type. Slightly above average.

Over the top

[12oclockhigh · 10/10 · 1 January 2003]

Thom Babbes performance as the lab assistant is simply over the top, far exceeding the performances of the more well known actors sending this little known flick over the top. You will have to watch this film to see what I'm referring to as I will not post a spoiler about the plot.

Worst of them all!

[guil12 · 29 January 2003]

Unfortunately, I saw the second one first. But, then I gave Gregory Harrison a little bit of sympathy for getting stuck in that chestnut. There's no excuse for what Marc Singer does in this one. Jackson Barr, the screenwriter, once more writes such a crock that it is totally unbelievable. But Singer really believes what he's doing. I thought he had more sense than to do this sad piece of work. And once more, we have that bad actress playing the villain. Lisa Pescia is my least favorite actress. Why she continues to work is beyond me. Don't know whether I like her less or the role she plays. Boring. Predictable. Why these leading men can't see what a loser she is. This sick one is once again permitted to knock off her lovers and get away with it. So Barr is asking us to believe it's all right to tie men up, and they let her, and proceed to humiliate them as well, calling this hot sex! Wrong. She's not even attractive. Directed by Kristine Peterson, which may account why the women get away with it, it shows men off to be not only free loving, away from their wives, but stupid in their choices of seeing anything attractive in the other woman.

Mary Crosby was the only one in this flick that made sense and this viewer applauded her out loud for dumping her loser of a husband. Marc Singer went through the entire film with a bug-eyed look. I have no intention of seeing BODY CHEMISTRY III or IV. Gonna spare myself the misery of sitting through them. Let us all hope that not only does Pescia get out of the business and off the screen, but that we no longer have to sit through this drivel. And Mr. Singer, get back to the animal adventure stuff you do so well.

This "chemistry" just mixes bad with bad

[Wizard-8 · 21 March 2011]

Once again, producer Roger Corman rips off a movie made by a major Hollywood studio, this time FATAL ATTRACTION. Though this rip-off claims to have a lot more sexual material than the original. Don't believe it. Surprisingly, there is a lot less sex and nudity in this movie than you would think, and the little sexual material there is is filmed in a way that we don't get to see much juicy stuff. Part of that's due to the movie's curious style, which is to shoot in rooms in near total darkness when anyone in real life would turn a light on! The movie also looks bad from a grainy look to everything that the photography films. Marc Singer gives a real bad performance here - he seems to be trying to imitate Kevin Bacon, specifically a third-rate imitation. The worst thing about the movie may be how every scene feels extremely flat - you won't feel any tension, eroticism, or anything else apart from boredom. The last few minutes of the movie do end things in a way that you probably won't predict, but this is too little too late to save the entire enterprise.