Reviews

78 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Pure junk
20 March 2012
This is as low as you can get. There are a couple of scenes, not at all related to each other slammed together. Probably dug up from someone's trash can. And I don't believe it at all that these scenes were all made by the makers of this movie. Some scenes have different colours, most scenes are soft core, but towards the end suddenly a hard core scene is shown. There is no story. No wonder if you take scenes from various movies and put them together.

Actually this is not a movie, but just some scenes found somewhere and put on a reel till it was filled. There is no standard low enough for this ogre. Even for the 70's when low was really low...

Avoid this movie like the plague, for every minute spent on this one is lost, forever.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Aliens paralyzed Eisenhower
21 August 2011
I have no idea why anyone grades this movie over 1 star. For even one star is far too much. After seeing this it is obvious Ed Wood should have been granted an Oscar. This is a kind of semi documentary informing us about every possible conspiracy the world has known from the 1940's onwards. I guess even people who dig conspiracy theories can't make any sense out of this one. The makers didn't do any shooting of footage themselves. They just cut pieces out of existing B-movies and better still Z-movies. Including titles. No matter whether black and white or colour, known (Godzilla) or fully obscure. A voice over explains things to us. Well, there is nothing to explain. It is just utter baloney. For just ten minutes it is nice to see the cuttings from 1950's and 1960's SF and horror, but that gets to be boring very soon. The nonsense is so overdone that for the first 15 minutes there is something to laugh about. But then you are stunned only and after 30 minutes you realize that this is just sheer nonsense, the cheapest way of making a movie: take cuts from other movies and put them together. If this is done intelligently it is OK. But here it makes the movie look as cheap as it is, as ridiculous as it is and as unwanted as it is. According to this movie aliens paralyzed Eisenhower. I almost sewed this movie for causing a sincere headache. Please, avoid this movie at all cost.
1 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sex Pot (2009 Video)
1970's farce made in 2009
23 July 2011
This movie simply is a bloody shame. It is about teenagers experimenting with pot. And to make this dull theme even duller some efforts to have sex are thrown in. Of course they never do have sex, for this is a comedy. So every effort ends in some disaster. These are intended to be funny, but they are straight out of the terrible sex comedies from the 1970's, such as Porky.

The DVD version I saw was in HD and that shows even more clearly what an awful movie this is. The script is awful, the actors are terrible, the direction is ridiculous, all jokes are badly timed, the camera is too static: in one word this is a complete disaster.

Every dime you spend on this movie is lost. You better put them in a slot machine. Who knows it returns something. This movie certainly doesn't.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An actor's movie that failed
20 July 2011
This movie actually is a true actor's movie. In true actor movies it is all about the actors. They (or at least one of them) are the only interesting aspects of the movie. Usually the story is written for the actors, the direction only helps the actors to make the most out of it. Everything else is of no real importance.

Watching this movie I thought about another actor's movie and a very good one: "Sleuth". Even Rooney doing his make up thing remembers one of Michael Caine doing the same in "Sleuth". And I was very impressed by Rooney's acting in this movie. Actually I think his acting was as good as Caine's in "Sleuth".

So it is obvious something went wrong, terribly wrong. I think first of all that horror is never a good genre for an experiment like this. Horror always depends on special effects. And you do not want those in an actor's movie. It's all about the actors, remember? And because it is all about the actors, you do not want any experimental camera-work. There is no need to shake the camera, put weird lenses on it or use it off color. The actors do those tricks and the camera puts their performance on film, that is all. And in this case the story itself stinks. It is a story intended for a sleazy B-movie. And even though Luana Anders performed quite well, her acting was not good enough to confront Mickey Rooney. Unlike the great interaction between Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier.

So what we are left with is a stinker. The only thing worth watching is Rooney's acting. But with nothing else to keep you going, this is almost impossible to keep up for more then 30 minutes.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bound Tears (2006 Video)
3/10
Beautifully filmed nonsense
5 June 2011
A bunch of beautiful, mainly blonde women in a house somewhere in the Czech Republic indulge in lesbian sex. Thrown in for good measures are some very mild S&M and bondage scenes. And this is all soft core to the bone. It's mainly titties we see, like we are watching some soft core movie made in the 1970's. There is no story to speak of. The whole movie is rather boring.

On the bright side however are the gorgeous actresses, the tasteful filming and the very good video quality. This is High Definition at its best.

This movie is for fans only. If you dig nude, slender and blond women this is your movie. If you like a good story, good acting, believable characters, then look somewhere else.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mistress of Souls (2007 Video)
2/10
For lovers of Lesbian bondage only
18 May 2011
To review this movie has one big advantage: there is no need to tell the story, for it is absent. We see a kind of dungeon where some females are having sex together, while others are tortured and exploited by other females. Except for one short scene there are no males in this movie. The women are whipped, marked and used as horses to pull a carriage. And it is all soft core, so one really wonders whether there still is a market for movies like this.

There are only two positive aspects of this movie. The women are extremely beautiful and all are some 25 years of age. The photography is not bad at all and neither is the lightning. Quite professional I would say.

But this is far from enough to make this even a decent picture. It would have been better if it had been hard core actually, but only for the intended public: those who love lesbian sex, lesbian domination and lesbian S&M.

Because of the beautiful cast and the nice photography, I rate this lesbian vehicle a 2 out of 10.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fongaluli (1972)
1/10
There is camp and there is this movie...
1 April 2011
Eduardo Cemano plays the part of a nutty professor. He is trying to cross animals to get weird results, such as flying turtles. One day he meets an "Arab", who introduces him to the Fongaluli leaves. Chew on them and soon you will have sexual hallucinations. In the first hallucination scene we see a man with a gorilla head and a woman with a panda head pretending to "do it".

You think this is ridiculous. Well, this movie regularly succeeds in topping even that. This is your typical drugs and sex movie from the '70's. And it is one big mess. The story is ridiculous. The filming pretentious, with Vaseline or something on the lens and of course there are the weird colors we always see in this type of movie. The sex could be hard core, or could be soft core, but the images are edited in such a way, that this remains a mystery. The (over) acting is worst of the worst. Cemano makes you nervous, the others are even worse.

The last orgy scene has some actual porn stars in it, such as Jamie Gillis. It is very possible the scene was taken from some adult movie and then reedited and colored in the same terrible way of other scenes in this extremely bad movie.

Avoid at all costs, for this is not even camp, just utter bullshit.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Could have been Attack of the Lobster Monsters
3 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is a Roger Corman movie. It was made at the same time as NOT OF THIS EARTH and both were shown as a double feature in 1957. Both had a producing time of ten days each and the budget for both films together was some 150,000 dollars. How do I know all this? Well, both movies are on a DVD box available nowadays and as a bonus the DVD contains an interview with Roger Corman himself. And these are facts he states in the interview.

I have always had a soft spot for Corman. Most of his movies are just awful B-films, usually horror or something like that. But this actually is one of his best movies. It is by no means a good movie. But bearing in mind the short production time, the low budget and the fact that this is, after all, a 1950's movie: it is rather good. The acting, the editing and the direction are good, the special effects however are mediocre at best, even though they are better than those in the early GODZILLA movies, for instance.

The story is about a group of scientists going to an isolated island. They soon discover weird things are taking place on the island. Soon it turns out they are being threatened by gigantic crabs, the result of atomic experiments on the island. The crabs apparently are even capable of incorporating humans into their bodies and minds.

Of course it is all utter nonsense. But in this case the nonsense is brought to us in a satisfactory way. There are some enormous black holes in the script. And what is that luxurious villa doing on this isolated island? A pleasant film to watch, a good Corman movie and now available in beautiful black and white on a DVD. If you like cheesy 1950's horror and SF give this one a try.

For me a 6 out of 10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Thing (1982)
9/10
Human horror movie
20 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I bought this series of DVD's. Each DVD contains two horror movies. Number 1 has The Thing and Day of the Dead. Both are horror classics, so the series delivers. But of these two The Thing is much better. The production values are higher, the script is more intelligent, the acting is better. The main thing though: the characters are better. These are human beings being submitted to supernatural, or better extra-terrestial powers. In Day of the Dead I couldn't sympathize with any of the characters, but in The Thing it is completely different. And the fine acting adds to this particular. Even though the movie is now nearly 30 years old, it still is a strong one. Being based on a Carpenter story helps, of course.

Excellent movie, especially for horror and monster movie fans. But even viewed as just a movie, this one delivers. Strong stomach recommended, especially when the blood is being tapped. It is human horror within the classical monster horror.

I rate this spelling movie a 9 out of 10.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Are all people zombies?
20 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I won't tell you the story, as many before me did that.

The only thing I like to add is that I didn't particularly like this movie. The sets are fine, the special effects quite convincing. There is no lack of gore or blood. But the acting is a bit stiff, but adequate. No there are two aspects of this movie which left me empty handed, so to speak.

First of all the plot. There is no way you can predict the ending of the movie. That is not because they came up with something brilliant. No the movie just abruptly ends on a coconut island. Far away from the zombies. There is however no big finale leading to this end, so it actually makes no sense.

What bothered me most about this movie however is the lack of a likable person. The zombies are bad to the bone, but so are all human characters, whether they belong to the medical staff or the military. There is no person to sympathize with and that is killing the movie. You just watch all the horrors passing by without emotion. You are not involved in the story and you actually don't care what happens to all these people. Their characters are disagreeable and you feel no compassion at all, which makes this movie too far from reality and too far from humanity to fully enjoy. In NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD you could identify with most of the characters, in this movie you can not. That is why I rate it 6 out of 10, which is a shame, for it is a well crafted horror movie indeed.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
This movie will get your old wall paper off the wall.
2 February 2011
Oh my. I hardly dare to write down my true feelings about this movie. So many before me have written that this is one of the best Gamera movies. I am happy I have only seen this one. For this is junk, pure junk. Apparently the IMDb rating of around 3 is more accurate than the comments are, for this is a bad movie. The story is far fetched, but I can live with that. The special effects however are ...the worst of the worst. Gamera is a puppet spitting fire. Nothing wrong with that, but why do we have to see the burner in his mouth? The final battle between Gamera and Barugon, another puppet, is so pitiful and badly done, than if you feel any tears coming up, it is because of laughter. Even monster or SF movies have to have some credibility. This movie has none. It is very much like a porn movie. The people who like porn always overestimate a porn movie. Apparently so do people who like monster junk from the 50's. A series like "The Thunderbirds" is much better, for it aims at children. This movie addresses an adult crowd. And it fails in all respects. For me a 3 out of 10: it was already junk when released, it is hopelessly outdated junk nowadays.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
1970's sleaze in HD
23 January 2011
Many others stated that this is a movie you either hate or love. That being true, it still is a bad B-movie. But if you dig those, you are in for a treat. Real bad guys somewhere in rural USA rape women enthusiastically. Then they rape a nun. It is something they had better not done, for the convent takes its revenge. Nuns with machine guns kill everybody in sight. Technically there is little wrong with this movie. But the story sucks and the acting is moderate at best. Especially the bad guys are depicted as black as possible. And they act accordingly. Now some of the nuns are really ugly, so you have to be a very bad guy to rape them with so much aplomb. This is simply a sexploitation movie like they were made in the 1970's. The best of those were interesting mainly because of the use of psychedelic colors and situations. This one is just a standard production like you have seen numerous times. The only plus of this movie: it is put on DVD in high quality. So if you like B-movies you should buy this one. It gives you the opportunity to finally get rid of some bad 1970's productions. You know: the ones from Something Weird Video, for instance. The copy of the film has been used for ages and is then put on a VHS video tape, which is copied over and over again. The DVD that results from this has an off-colored, hazy picture and muffled sometimes inaudible sound. Replacing the worst ones with this one will save you some space. But I wouldn't be surprised if you soon start to miss those old ones...
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Family (1970)
1/10
Hippies doing it
17 January 2011
In this heap of junk we see three hippie couples taking drugs, drinking beer and having sex. And really that is all. The reason I write this comment is to add to the already existing comment that there is a hardcore version around. It can be found on a DVD released in 2010 by After Hours Cinema. The DVD is called Insanity and there are two movies on it. First there is Sexual Insanity. Now this is a weird one, for it is not even in the IMDb. It is what I refer to as half core. The actors are not faking the sex (at least not all of the time), but are actually having sex. But the filming and editing is such that it is never really shown. The second movie is this one: The Family. But it is a hard core version, even though the hard core doesn't begin till the middle of the movie. The first part is soft core to the bone. At first I though the hard core was just an insert, but the last orgy contained hard core scenes as well.

Now this hard core doesn't improve the quality of this movie, for it remains was it was: a heap of junk. After Hours Cinema promises us an 'enhanced edition', but forget that. The quality of the print used was poor. The sound is muffled. There are no closing titles. Nothing seems to be enhanced at all.

When the thought of hippies doing the things hippies did in the early 1970's may turn you on, you could chew on this one. But I bet you get bored very soon and chances are you don't even make it to the hardcore bits. But when you do, the disappointment doesn't disappear at all. It could be more rewarding staring at a real heap of junk...

For me, a 1 out of 10, alas.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Aphrodite (1982)
3/10
Victorian Caligula clone
5 December 2010
The makers of this movie wanted to make a story, late Victorian, set on a breathtakingly beautiful Greek island. But soon they realized that there was not much of a story, the actors were not good enough to spice up the dull characters. And then they remembered Caligula. It suffered from the same shortcomings, but became a best seller by the use of sex.

So sex was introduced in this movie, including a few orgy scenes. It is all soft core-on-the-edge. And that was the first mistake. It is the 80's. Nobody is shocked by naked people anymore. The second point is that all the sex doesn't really help the characters. In the beginning of the movie they don't mean anything to you, by the end of this movie you don't even care about them. The acting is partly reasonable, partly intolerable. The movie itself is smothered in pretenses.

On the positive side: a lot of attention is paid to the costumes and the settings. The actors are quite attractive. The camera work is excellent: the soft focus effect really adds to the weird atmosphere. It also works in one or two carefully filmed love scenes, filmed in a "Bilitis" David Hamilton style.

All in all this is a dreadfully boring movie, pretentious and not delivering on any level.

I rate this 3 out of 10.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bianca (1982)
3/10
The Dtory of O, set in Greece
11 November 2010
We meet Roger, a rich man and his girlfriend in Italy. She provides him with a new girl, ready to obey his orders for a lot of money. The three of them go to Greece, where Roger owns a big villa. He is a perverted sadist and soon Bianca is found in chains, beaten up and abused in many other ways. Roger has lots of girl friends and these mingle with other guests in Roger's house and soon everybody is doing everybody.

There is no real story in this movie. It is all about showing us naked bodies. For even though the outline of the story might suggest to you that this is a hard core movie, it is not. It is soft core to the bone. The sex scenes are numerous, but short. The acting is sort of OK, but the story is too boring to keep you awake. Even though the actresses are good looking, this movie has very little to offer.

There could be a hard core version around, I don't know. But if there is and you are into that kind of stuff the hard core version is to be preferred over the dreadfully boring soft core version I watched.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Beautiful girls, if only they could act...
13 October 2010
After finishing high school Marla (Dianne Dale) and Debbie (Nancy Hoffman) are having their first serious sexual experiences. These include a lesbian affair and a SM-session. You might think this movie has a story or a plot. But it has not. We are treated to one sex scene after the other. The SM scene makes the movie just a little bit less boring than usual. Contrary to many other high school movies, Dale and Hoffman could pass as girls fresh out of high school. Just before the lesbian scene we see the girls watching an old fashioned 8mm movie. It consists of archive footage and has John Holmes in it, among others. Technically the movie is so so. But it's the very bad acting that is killing this movie. The director shows little talent directing the porn scenes and no talent directing the few non porn scenes.

As a porn movie I rate this one a 5 out of 10, but as just a movie, it is a 2 out of 10: a simple waste of time.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman in the nude.
13 October 2010
In the late 1970's and the 1980's porn makers made a spoof of every movie and every TV-series ever made. Even some musicals were spoofed! With only very few exceptions these spoofs really failed. Usually they just took the characters from the original and the characters had sex. The atmosphere, the storyline, the essence of the movie spoofed was absolutely gone. The first ten to twenty minutes were often surprising, but then one porn scene after the other made the spoofs incredibly boring. One of the best examples of this is "Alice in Wonderland", made in 1976 with Kristine deBell as Alice.

This is a comparable spoof. The makers took the TV-series "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" and turned it into hardcore. Now the original TV-series is one of the best of all absurd series ever made in the USA. Louise Lasser is Mary Hartman and she happens to be stupid and intelligent at the same time. The series was not to everybody's taste, but like "Soap" it was a bit of genius.

This spoof is not as bad as most others. Mary Flegus is played by Victoria Corsaut, wearing a wig just like Louise Lasser's in the TV-series. Some of the conversations are quite absurd and rather like in the TV-series. Most however are not as absurd and amusing. A rather strange atmosphere is created, the makers succeeded there. However the hardcore does actually not fit in. Who wants to see Louise Lasser in bed? She has the erotic radiance of a radish. And so does Mary Flegus. The first sex scene is of a man pumping a woman. But she is not interested in his bonking at all. As a spoof this is OK, but who wants to watch this? Those who love the original series and serious movie lovers are offended by the sex and those who love porn are offended by the cold woman who is not even pretending to amuse herself while in the sack. And actually that is what's wrong with this movie: it is not appealing to anyone.

Still some jokes do work and Victoria Corsaut is not a bad Mary Hartman impersonator. That is why I rate this 5 out of 10. The version I saw was made in 1984 and distributed on VHS by Masterpiece Distributors. Well, it was far from a masterpiece. The quality of the pictures was poor and the sound was very poor indeed. But maybe a restored DVD-version is around nowadays.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A misery on celluloid
8 October 2010
The plot as described here on the IMDb says it all: three women can't get enough sex at home, so they jump on every man in sight. This is 1970, so we are talking soft core. And it shows. The sex scenes are so clumsily made, that all the time we see the male actors "at work" without a trace of an erection. The acting is awful, the budget super low, the direction is clumsy, the camera-work is jumpy. So, to sum it up: this is a misery on celluloid.

I can not recommend this movie to anyone, with the exception of fans of Miss Digart. But I think even they will be very disappointed, for she did make tastier movies.

For me a 1 out of 10.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Where the hell is the splendor?
8 October 2010
This movie has no story. It is just three successive sex scenes.

In the first we see Jan Davis waking up and sexually satisfying herself. This scene is very explicit and the filming of it is ugly.

In the second scene the maid enters the room and the two of them have a lesbian encounter. Less explicit, but filmed in the same ugly way.

In the third scene Pete Dawson enters the room and a trio starts. This is not filmed explicitly and is extremely boring.

It is possible though a real hardcore version is in existence, which our friends at Something Weird Video were unable to dig up. This movies raises one single question only: why the hell did they make it? The budget probably was about a penny, the actors are not beautiful, nor interesting. The whole movie is filmed in one single room. Avoid this one at all costs, for it has nothing to offer whatsoever.

To me a 1 out of 10, because I can't go any lower.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Fourth Body (2004 Video)
5/10
Real moving pictures
8 October 2010
Roy Stuart started as photographer, but later made documentary movies as well, such as "Glimpse". His photographs often deal with the female body. In The Fourth Body we apparently see hem at work. Not that we see much of the photographers, the movie concentrates on females. Sometimes they are dressed, usually they are undressed. We see a few hardcore scenes being recorded, but usually we see females on the set. Many of these sets are either artsy, weird or fascinating. There are also shorts scenes of the changing of the guard in, at least I believe, Copenhagen. This movie is not a movie in the traditional sense, for no real story is told. In fact it is more or less a collage of moving photographs.

I was fascinated by the movie, but at the end it left me empty handed. There is no point to it and in my humble opinion it is extremely pretentious. Nevertheless it did have some extremely attractive women, scenes are very short, so you don't get bored easily. And I never saw anything like before. This is a product I hate and love at the same time, even though I dislike the movie's pointlessness.

I rate this one a 5 out of 10, but doubt whether I will ever watch it again.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Messy World War II exploitation
6 October 2010
Oh dear, how to say something intelligent about this ...movie. Some 25 years after World War II Count Henry de Prave looks back to what happened during that time in France. The story starts in 1943 when Colonel Max van Hildebrandt is made commandant in occupied France.

We see him celebrating that moment, naked women, his departure to France, naked women, a deaf and mute girl, naked women, him torturing a woman, naked women, the resistance, naked women, the end of the war and more naked women.

It doesn't make any sense at all. The acting is terrible. It doesn't have a fascinating story, so it is not a thriller. We learn nothing about World War II, so it is not a real war movie. There are no real sex scenes, so it is not pornography. The torture scene is extremely lame, so no Jesus Franco there. No this is just nothing. The director was never heard of again and the same goes for many of the actors. It all mounts up to a kind of Roger Corman flick, but at least he had a genuine love for movies. I doubt that when it comes to mister Friedberg. This is simply a Z-movie. But I have seen worse movies, so I rate it a 2 out of 10.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Weird mixture of sexploitation and film noir
6 October 2010
A peek into the life of a very sleazy man: Mike Torson. He is a male prostitute and above all a blackmailer. He has one goal in his life: to own a Park Avenue apartment. And he has no scruples getting there.

This is an exception in Doris Wishman's oeuvre, for it does not concentrate on women, but has a male lead: Buck Starr. He did appear in three other Wishman movies, but is otherwise unknown. In his only leading role he portraits Torson quite well, actually. But Torson himself is such a vain creep, you never feel a bond with him. And neither with mister Starr for that matter.

Other ingredients of Doris Wishman's work are still there: lots of half naked women, close ups of feet and legs, sleazy acting, failing continuity, ill fitting musical scores. The sex is like it still is in modern television. The actors either keep their underwear on, or make love fully covered by a blanket. The only thing that works in this movie is the film noir atmosphere, but that alone does not make up for all the faults and B-features.

Both Buck Starr and Mike Torson made me feel uneasy. That is a good thing by itself, but it doesn't change. After half an hour one still feels unsettled and then it becomes quite boring actually. Torson really has nothing positive about him and that makes him a robot, inhumane. So the viewer can't really relate to him. And that means sooner or later you have had it with the man.

Interesting effort to combine film noir with sexploitation, but it failed, hopelessly.

For me a 4 out of ten, because of the first part of the movie, when you are still fascinated by what's going on.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Guess who will be sleeping with me tonight?
6 October 2010
The movie tells us the story of a Herrenhaus (villa) in the beautiful countryside of Germany. For 500 years is has had a reputation: the nobility owning the house love sex. The two daughters show us the reputation is justified. But then the youngest daughter comes back from a two year period spent in a boarding school. And she turns out to be a virgin! This could seriously damage the reputation of the house and its family, so drastic measures are taken to end this dangerous situation. Luckily the house is frequented by a teacher of the violin and a student of art history. And then there is the chauffeur...

This is one of the many sex comedies made in Germany by the end of the 1960's up to the beginning of the 1980's. These comedies are all rooted in the German Heimat-genre. This one is quite early, which means a lot of nude German Dirndles, but no real sex scenes, not even simulated ones. The jokes are all outdated now, for during the time this movie was produced the Europeans were dealing with the dark age of the 1950's. Most jokes refer to this period and many are not funny at all these days. A butler, Herr Martin, is thrown in to deliver commentary and one liners, but alas, Martin Jenke is not a great actor and most of his commentary is quite lame. And to top of all the fun your classical homosexual is thrown in as well, who passionately loves the girls. Luckily this movie has Ingrid Steeger, one of the most beautiful Dirndles, to spice things up a bit.

Actually there isn't much of a story. And what story there is, is only used to make us laugh or show us naked girls. The pace is quite slow and the music is... dreadful. The song used for the opening title, which translates as "Guess who will be sleeping with me tonight?" (also the title of this movie) runs for almost five minutes during the opening titles. Tedious. It is frequently used again during the film, but in an instrumental version. The song itself is typical of 1969 in Germany: the text is quite risqué, but the music itself clearly points back to the 1950's or so.

The acting is above the genre's average. And so is the direction. Downsides are the slow pace and the many outdated jokes. If you like the German Lederhose movies, or enjoyed the Report movies, you might try this one. Most others I would advice to watch a more recent comedy of this type. You probably will have more laughs out of those than you will have out of this farce. For me a 4 out of 10.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Forget the narrators and you'll be OK
20 September 2010
I saw the 'restored version' from 2007 by After Hours Cinema, which was technically OK. Alas, it lacked opening titles and closing titles, so it remains a mystery who the actors are, except for one: Louise Thompson. In this movie she is the slender, beautiful wife. She and her very young husband take in a Swedish exchange student. They show her the surroundings of their house and soon manage to seduce her. In the last 20 minutes of this movie, we mainly see them having sex. Mind you: it is all soft core and soon becomes boring like hell.

Actually the whole movie is quite boring. It is your typical flick from the 1968 to 1972 period. Realism and cynicism dawned on people after realizing the flower power-period was as good as over. And people still weren't happy, even though they looked it. While we see the three main actors running around in the park, or visiting a closed merry-go-round, or having sex, they smile and look happy. The narrators (the actors themselves, actually) however tell another story. A story of empty lives, hollow pleasures. Now it is here that the movie goes wrong. The narrating is bad. The narrators quite often laugh a hollow laugh, but they fail in making the emptiness believable. And thus the awful narration clashes with the visuals, but in the wrong way. Even when the narration paints another picture than the actual visuals, it still has to be a unity. Here it isn't.

What remains is an acceptable peek of life in 1971. The beautiful lifeless suburb the couple lives in is nicely depicted. The clothes, the music: it all fits. Even the acting isn't too bad and Thompson is beautiful indeed. But the narration is pompous, overdone and spoils a lot of the fun. The movie is not sexploitation, so porn lovers will not be very interested in this movie. But there is more nudity in the 2nd half of the movie than many serious movie lovers will be able to tolerate. Especially the movie-in-the-movie is extremely boring. All in all I rate this one a 4 out of 10.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Please, keep the lid on the trash bin!
31 August 2010
When boys go into puberty they dream and fantasize all day. About girls, of course. And mainly about how to get the girls out of their clothes quickly. One of the ways is of course: imagine yourself to be a famous movie director or movie producer. Girls will line up to take off their clothes for you! And you can make them do whatever you like. I think all adult men will remember this dream from their own past.

Now here is Zoltan G. Spencer. He is an adult, but still remembers his dreams from way back. So, he makes a movie about his dream. He is not only the director, but the producer as well and is an actor in this one. And there are a lot of girls and they all take their clothes off. Oh boy, did he have a good time.

The same can not be said for the movie fans. There is no story at all. We are confronted with nudity 99.99% of the time. There are very few real sex scenes and these are done in a very particular way, typical of 1969: female genitals are shown, male genitals are never shown. The acting is irritatingly bad. Sometimes bad acting makes you laugh out loudly, but here it only annoys you. There is one scene where an ape tortures and rapes a girl. Rarely have I seen any this clumsily made. Maybe the fans of the worst of the worst get a laugh out of that scene, but alas, not me.

This movie is a real stinker. And of course was put on video by Something Weird Video, the one firm in the world that never lets us down. They just keep on digging in the trash bins of the movie industry. And for their standards this is a jewel. For all real movie fans this should have been undiscovered. Trash bins do have a purpose, you know!
4 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed