Blue Money (1972) User Reviews

The pursuit of happiness via porn

[Chase_Witherspoon · 4/10 · 2 April 2012]

French-Canadian man (Patrick) does his best to secure his young family the freedom and future they crave aboard the boat he's lovingly restoring, on an income derived from his work as an adult film-maker. But the pressures of the business and political crackdowns take their toll forcing his wife (Caron) to leave their rented pad while Patrick frantically attempts to get his last few movies in the can to finance their dream and rid the family of their ignominious past.

Patrick stars and directs this low-key drama in which his central character goes from porn-artist to money-hungry assembly line producer, turning would-be starlets into harlots to feed his freedom frenzy. Caron as his pot-smoking former actress wife protests a lot, but never seems to have the conviction to make a lasting stand against his chosen "profession", manacled by the material trappings and constant promise of a better life aboard the grand ship freedom, where they plan to sail the seven seas, trading coconuts and trinkets, smoking dope, drinking wine and living the dream. Jeff Gall is suitably sleazy as Patrick's partner and enthusiastic co-producer, while Gary Kent is a familiar face and voice in a small role as a vice detective.

Some humour (the quirky auditions should make you chuckle), lots of bare flesh and simulated sex (as you'd expect) and a manuscript full of dumb dialogue ("you can't come to work when you've got your period") the film never really hits the high notes, remaining low-key and melodramatic, like a balloon fizzling to its limp conclusion, which is especially disappointing, leaving little resolved. Looks a little experimental and obviously dabbles in a taboo subject particularly in its era and political context, might be worth a look if you can appreciate B-grade trash cinema.

The trials and tribulations of a couple in the adult film industry in the early 1970's

[dbborroughs · 4/10 · 30 July 2009]

Jim and Lisa's marriage goes on the rocks as Jim's involvement in the adult film industry with its available women, questionable financing and the government disdain, take a heavy toll on the couple.

Filmed so that part of the film looks like a government surveillance film this is an odd duck film. Coming out at about the time that Deep Throat was smashing barriers and the sexual revolution being in full swing this is a film that kind of wants to have it both ways. It very much wants to show the people who make adult films as people (it was made by people with connections to the industry) but at the same time it wants to be an exploitation film by taking the point of those seeking to ban the films. Its like a slightly more honest version of the old road show films that promised to warn you of the dangers of certain vices by wallowing in them for 90 minutes. In a weird way the film almost works, but in the end the film kind of collapses in on itself partly because the film has been lost in time, society has moved on and the film now seems the wrong sort of quaint. Mostly the film doesn't work because the performances are all over the place so the film never gets into any sort of groove. Often one scene will fall apart because of one poor performance.

I can't really recommend the film since it didn't really work. But for those who are interested in the history of society's attitude toward sex and adult films this is an interesting curio.

Despite the promising topic, this isn't too interesting

[Red-Barracuda · 4/10 · 15 March 2016]

Blue Money was made during the golden age of porn in the 70's when feature length hardcore films were made with story lines and some production values to them. This was the era when these kinds of films were made on film and shown by necessity in cinemas. It all seems so very odd nowadays but seemingly that was the way it was back then. Blue Money is one of the exploitation films that tapped into this territory and set a drama around the sex industry. It's about a man who tries to secure the future of his family by making adult movies. Meanwhile the feds hover in the background secretly filming the film-maker to bring him down on obscenity charges.

This was one of the many b-movies put out by Crown International Pictures. Their output was notable for featuring plenty of nudity to draw in the crowds but surprisingly Blue Money is not especially salacious stuff given its subject matter and distributer. In fact it seems to be trying to be a serious drama first and foremost. This isn't precisely a bad idea but it ultimately fails on account of the poor characterisations and an overly underplayed storyline. Probably the biggest single issue though was the thoroughly under-par performance of the lead actor Alain Patrick who also directed, wrote and produced this as well! Fair play for trying to do everything but he is a terrible actor. At the end of the day, this is a movie that promises quite a lot given its interesting subject matter but it's sadly a pretty tedious affair for the most part.

bare bones blue

[RavenGlamDVDCollector · 4/10 · 3 July 2017]

{as a movie, it sucks, worth not even a 2, but the two female leads are so, so pretty, it is worth watching}

I'm just passing through the "Dangerous Babes" box-set because of having seen one of the other movies back in the day. I'd never heard of any of the other lot, and do not expect much.

BLUE MONEY deals with the porn industry. The vice police are staking out a suspect back in the days during the Nixon- era's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Not that the police are side-tracked in their relentless pursuit of soft targets!

Very misleading information is posted about this movie. Well, currently (July 2017) if you Google the name, it sounds kinda cool. Thought-provoking movie about the old days of porno- making? No, man, this little flick is too weak and too boring to inspire any thoughts. Well-made? Hell, had it been well- made I'd have rated it a lot more. Do not expect anything sleazy either. The movie stands on the edge and tests the waters, afraid to go in. Believe me, this flick is a clunker.

But it has two things going for it. The beauty of its two female leads. Barbara Caron (later Mills) as Lisa, and Inga as Ingrid. One problem, they have the same style and appears very much alike. Only, Lisa is the mother, and Jim is looking to broaden his horizon. Ingrid, Lisa, they both have long luscious brown manes, and me being The Raven, d-uh, I go ga-ga for them. The Seventies was a harsh era. Permed. Rough and sun-tanned. I grew up during that era, but looking back, in old magazines, so many models (and their stylists) had it all wrong. The soft look of the Nineties is my thing. But these girls, they were icons ahead of their time. They do have that "free" look, but unspoiled. They'd look NOW if they could step out of the film.

Which brings me to a sad revelation. I Googled Barbara Caron, and she's already long-gone deceased in 2010. Remembered for her long brown mane on Wikipedia, and her gentle description still haunts me. I haven't even gotten around to Googling Inga after that...

Getting back to the movie, behind the scenes at a blue movie studio. Weakly filmed, with enough self-censorship to choke ten horses. Unless you're into seeing two pretty faces framed by glorious long hair cascading down their backs, and, yes, Barbara has long, long legs which are often put on display as she comes down the stairs barefoot... well, you get the picture, there are a few bits of nudity, but if that is what you're after, very little to see. Controversial naked mother with daughter on the stairs, well, there is that.

I myself believe in freedom of expression, spoilsports need to be told off, so I very much like the rebellious spirit noticeable towards the end, yeah, you go, Jim dude! but actor Alain couldn't even nearly carry it off. And the ending's inconclusive.

The story is weak and the lead actor is some foreign dude, French obviously, who is the multi-talent Jack Of All Trades but yeah, a Master Of None. The further it goes on, the more you see his shortcomings. In a pivotal scene, Barbara, in close-up, is supposed to portray anguish at impending police crackdown, but seems to giggle. Inga is also a foreign chick, and exactly just what is said, often eludes me.

Of course, I wouldn't have wanted Barbara and Inga any different. As for the rest though...

Could have been insightful, but ends up being boring

[Wizard-8 · 5 April 2012]

I have to confess that I haven't seen that many true pornographic films, because what I've seen has left me both bored and depressed. However, I have enjoyed a number of movies that have dealt with the pornographic industry, from "Boogie Nights" to "Orgazmo". "Blue Money" could have been another interesting look at the industry, since it deals with the porn film industry when it was starting to become mainstream yet still falling afoul of the law. However, it is a crushing bore. There's very little story, and it's stretched out way past the breaking point. The characters aren't very interesting as well. If you are thinking of watching the movie anyway to see sex or nudity, let me warn you that there isn't a terrible amount of this material, and the little there is isn't presented in an erotic light. I have no idea why Crown-International picked this up for distribution, because it's unlike their usual product, which usually made an effort to deliver the goods. I guess there is some curio value, but not enough to make it worth searching for.

Is the main actor Tommy Wiseau?

[rogue9102 · 1/10 · 23 September 2020]

This movie was just plain bad but I spent most of the time thinking that the main actor Jim is actually Tommy Wiseau 31 years prior to The Room and pre-car accident. There is literally no information on the main actor, he sounds like Tommy (French accent)and even has the same smile. It makes perfect sense...love interests name is Lisa and he plays the role of Director, star and writer. Hmmm. A thinker.

Slower than Molasses

[arfdawg-1 · 1/10 · 8 January 2017]

The Plot.

Handsome and successful Jim appears to have it all: he's married to the beautiful and supportive Lisa, has a healthy baby, and works a cool gig as the director of hardcore porno fare.

Jim's seemingly perfect life starts to fall apart when he has an extramarital fling with an actress and the local Los Angeles vice cops close in to make a bust.

As the movie begins, you see a sigh flapping in the wind that says "Dog On Duty."

Only there is no fence to contain a dog. It's a wide open space! LOL.

This defines the film. It's moronic.

Whoever directed this has no clue about film making or exposition.

The lead dude can't act and must have blown the producer.

It's simply awful.

Should have been called "No Money".

[mark.waltz · 2/10 · 25 January 2023]

No money for the budget. No money in the box office, and certainly no class. It's a good thing that there was no money for the budget because there certainly weren't any actors in the cast, and the script barely has the quality of a 99 cent novel discounted to $0.10 at the local drugstore. This exploitation film about the adult movie industry also has absolutely no heat, and the actors simulating sexual acts seem to be really bored with what they have to say and what they have to do, making me wonder how the producers got through with this without re-casting. The script is absolutely tacky, and even those titillated by overt sexual dialogue will be outrageously bored, with the main plot, about a married couple involved in the adult film industry desperate to get out.

There are blips of others they encounter, especially those trying to get in, and like the song "You Got To Have a Gimmick" indicates, all you needed to have to be cast in this film is no talent. This is proof that even in an era where anything went in films, going against what would have offended the production code a decade before makes me wonder if it was all worth it. Lots of unintentional laughs of bad fashions and ridiculous dialogue, and even as a product of its time, it's not amusing in any way as a period piece. All this does is reinforced the reputation for Crown pictures as the PRC of its day with constant releases that don't at all rise above my translation of that abbreviation, pretty rotten cinema. In its attempts to be erotic and revealing about the smut industry, all it does is indicate how bored these people were with sex, and when you make sex look boring, what else do you have left but an empty shell that after watching this reveals a total waste of time?

The worst thing a movie can be is boring

[culwin · 2/10 · 29 August 2021]

This snooze-fest makes Tommy Wiseau look Oscar-worthy. In fact, there are many similarities with The Room - an actor/director with an accent, topless women, and a guy who argues with his wife. But at least Tommy is kind of funny and constructs interesting scenes. The guy shoots porn films to get money to build a boat. His wife doesn't like it. Occasionally cops act like they might do something. That's about all that happens. Somehow, they stretched that premise to over an hour. The porn angle is not interesting either. I almost fell asleep, but the only thing keeping me awake is wondering if they made it this dull on purpose. I can only recommend watching this if you want to brag to your friends about having sat all the way through it.

Another worthless forgotten film from Crown

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 22 November 2015]

I don't know about other reviewers but I thought this sleazy skin flick was absolutely awful. Like other Crown International Pictures from the era such as CINDY AND DONNA, this is a near plot less affair of simulated sex between unappealing actors with a few dramatic elements thrown into the mix.

The main character is a sleazy porn producer who falls for one of his own actresses. They attempt to get out of the business, but various stuff gets in the way. The whole film has a tired, cheap look to it, the characters are horrendous, and it's about unerotic as it gets. Viewers looking for genuinely sleazy fare will also be disappointed as films like this are oddly tame considering the shocking depravity that a lot of horror films were delving into during the same era (I'm thinking of THE EXORCIST and THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE as an example).

An interesting insider look at the early 70's adult film industry

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 30 December 2008]

Handsome and successful, yet arrogant young Jim (nicely played to the cocky hilt by Alain Patrick) appears to have it all together: he's married to the beautiful and supportive Lisa (a winningly warm portrayal by luscious brunette Barbara Mills), has a healthy baby, and works a cool gig as the director of hardcore porno fare. Jim's seemingly perfect life starts to fall apart when he has an extramarital fling with yummy blonde Ingrid (the delectable Inga Maria) and the local Los Angeles vice cops close in to make a bust. Director Patrick and screenwriter Nick Boretz offer a fascinatingly stark, gritty and seamy behind-the-scenes peek at the funky early 70's smut cinema trade. Although this movie delivers a fair amount of nudity and soft-core sex, it's surprisingly not that trashy or exploitative. In fact, Patrick and Beretz handle the sordid subject matter in an admirably casual, nonjudgmental and matter-of-fact way. Patrick and Mills give engagingly natural performances in the lead roles; they receive sound support from Jeff Gall as shrewd sleazeball producer Mike, Oliver Aubrey as smarmy investor Fatman, Steve Roberson as nervous theater owner Freddie, and Gary Kent as a browbeating vice cop. 70's skinflick starlets Sandy Dempsey, Maria Arnold, Eve Orlon, and Suzanne Fields pop up as various actresses who do what they do in Jim's dirty pictures. R. Michael Stringer's crisp cinematography does the trick. The neatly varied score alternates between melodic acoustic folk and groovy prog-rock. Executive produced by noted adult filmmaker Bob Chinn (he made the famous Johnny Wadd features starring the legendary John Holmes), this offbeat and intriguing unsung sleeper overall sizes up as a more accurate and authentic small scale version of "Boogie Nights."