Well, one thing I can say about this soft-core erotic movie is that I wasn't a bit disappointed. The reason I wasn't disappointed is that I was resigned ahead of time to watching an hour and a half of cinematic offal.
I don't know why I keep bothering to watch these things. Partly tempted by the tantalizing covers, I expect, but also because I keep hoping against hope that behind, or maybe under, those glossy curls, those preposterous bosoms, the bulging pecs, the phony moans, the eager simulations of coitus, there might be a decent movie that manages successfully to combine effective sex scenes with an interesting plot and some talented performers. Once in a while it happens, after all. Bertolucci's "The Dreamers," for instance. Not a masterpiece, no, but a respectable film whose merits can be argued.
There's nothing wrong with sex or nudity in a film, although it seems to drive some of us into apoplexy. Cripes, we put up with all kinds of gore on the screen. Arnold can wrench off someone's head and pour evil fluids down the neck cavity -- and do it with a wisecrack -- and we laugh and clap with glee. But -- Sex? OMG.
Sadly, though the sex in this movie isn't enough to make up for the almost symptotic lack of talent in front of and behind the camera. And that despite the attractive female lead, Judy Thompson, who looks like a second-tier Meg Tilly. She's really pretty and nicely assembled.
But who can concentrate on her when she sounds worse than some kid appearing in a high school play in Kearny, New Jersey? Or -- who knows -- maybe she's a genius at dramatics but was unable to overcome a banal script. Nobody could have done it justice.
Here's what it's like: a regular skin flick only with soft-core sexual episodes. There's just enough plot (about graduate students) to link the erotic scenes together.
I rewound it before it reached the end. Ho hum.
I don't know why I keep bothering to watch these things. Partly tempted by the tantalizing covers, I expect, but also because I keep hoping against hope that behind, or maybe under, those glossy curls, those preposterous bosoms, the bulging pecs, the phony moans, the eager simulations of coitus, there might be a decent movie that manages successfully to combine effective sex scenes with an interesting plot and some talented performers. Once in a while it happens, after all. Bertolucci's "The Dreamers," for instance. Not a masterpiece, no, but a respectable film whose merits can be argued.
There's nothing wrong with sex or nudity in a film, although it seems to drive some of us into apoplexy. Cripes, we put up with all kinds of gore on the screen. Arnold can wrench off someone's head and pour evil fluids down the neck cavity -- and do it with a wisecrack -- and we laugh and clap with glee. But -- Sex? OMG.
Sadly, though the sex in this movie isn't enough to make up for the almost symptotic lack of talent in front of and behind the camera. And that despite the attractive female lead, Judy Thompson, who looks like a second-tier Meg Tilly. She's really pretty and nicely assembled.
But who can concentrate on her when she sounds worse than some kid appearing in a high school play in Kearny, New Jersey? Or -- who knows -- maybe she's a genius at dramatics but was unable to overcome a banal script. Nobody could have done it justice.
Here's what it's like: a regular skin flick only with soft-core sexual episodes. There's just enough plot (about graduate students) to link the erotic scenes together.
I rewound it before it reached the end. Ho hum.