Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

I truly am at a loss as to why this movie has such a high rating. Campy is one thing. Bad is totally another. I thought I had seen all the horrible movies. I thought I had seen all the really bad ones. I was wrong. This film easily takes the spot in my worst movie category. The plot, the acting, the set...who am I kidding? There wasn't any! The soundtrack was horrible. The best way to watch this movie is with the director's commentary on. By far, it is funnier than the movie. He even says that the people in the film can't act. And that there was no script; the lines were all made up on the spot. Don't waste your money renting this one, but if you do, definitely turn on the commentary.

Underground film from the 1960's that plays better in the context of history rather than in present. The story has something to do with fleshapoids, robots in the future that go berserk and develop feelings. Made about the same time as Andy Warhol was turning out his early films and Andy Milligan was abandoning off Broadway for cinema screens this is an odd film that has been compared to the works of Kenneth Anger. I think the connection is tenuous at best since Anger had a little bit more going on then whats on screen here. (Frankly I think people who make the connection simply because Anger is a name people know.) Campy, I'm not sure intentionally so, the film isn't bad, but its not really good with the stupid motions of the fleshapoids making this the sort of film that will have you asking if they were serious. I'm guessing that the film played better in the basement cinemas where it was first shown. I decided to pick the film up because I had read about it over the years as being an "important" work in the history of underground film. Watching it some 45 years after it was filmed I was struck by how of the time it was, unfortunately its time has passed. Worth a look for people interested in the underground films of the 1960's. All others are advised to look elsewhere

Basically there are only two movies you have to watch. One is Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane." The other is, of course, "Sins of the Fleshopoids." While Welles took around 2 1/2 hours and about a hundred scenes to define his genius, Kuchar did it in about 12 seconds in less than one. The shot in which mankind's ultimate utopia is described by an Adonis like man with wearing a futuristic Roman style abbreviated tunic (to show off his muscle-man physique) and 50's flat-top (think brown-haired counterpart to Kirk Douglas as Spartacus) lays on a divan surrounded by faux Greek columns contemplating the simple , understated beauty of a Clark Bar. "Sins of the Fleshopoids" in my mind, was better than "Citizen Kane," but hands down, everybody must agree that given the choice between watching it, and "Gone with the Wind," (an unwatchable movie - no joke here) you've got to go with the Clark Bar.The truth of the matter is that Kuchar knew exactly what he was making here, and did a pretty great job of winding some satire throughout his homage to the idiom.

It would appear the only point of this movie is to show a large breasted woman handling Christmas ornaments supposed to be jewels while a space pilot wears a football uniform in a palace which looks like a run-down house. The climactic birth scene has to be seen to be believed. Lots of wafting breezes.