Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

I'll tell you why so serious

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

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.

For the 39% of Playboy Magazine subscribers (e.g.--Janet Reno, Gore Vidal, Madeleine Albright) who pay monthly for the articles rather than the pictorials, this Playboy movie will be taken primarily as a cautionary tale about the corruption of the world pharmaceutical industry. The main character Janie (the artificially enhanced Judy Thompson) works in a pharmaceutical lab. Her lover's boss, Prof. Sterling Manville (John Logan), teaches a college sex appreciation course as a front to manufacture and distribute a new hallucinogenic date-rape drug which causes users hump their pillows even if their long-time lovers have just been murdered. Meanwhile, the so-called legal medicine men turn a blind eye while working cheek by jowl with presumed deviant sex slayers. A person could pick up much the same message from the other movie I saw today (Chris Bell's excellent doc BIGGER STRONGER FASTER: THE SIDE EFFECTS OF BEING American), but who do YOU want to see with few or any clothes on: the artificially enhanced Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Ms. Thompson?

These movies require good sex to be effective and this one delivers the goods. This is the story about a woman(Judy Thompson) running into a wild friend played by Kim Yates. This is Judy Thomas first movie and she pulls off a pretty good job. Even if she is the star; it's basically Kim's movie. Her sex scenes steam up this slow plot that involves a murder mystery. It's worth a "7" for that and the attractive CeCe Tsou making a small, but distinctive mark.

A nice little soft core movie that delivers exactly what you want out of it; some beautiful women and some excellent sex scenes. One thing, I cannot believe that this is the only thing the star Judy Thompson has ever done, she is just beautiful and very uninhibited!