Awards & Rankings
Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 155 Ratings
Feb 1, 2013Eh....I don't find this movie so sexy. I'm a dude, and I guess I'm suppose to say this is so erotic and watch it over and over again just toEh....I don't find this movie so sexy. I'm a dude, and I guess I'm suppose to say this is so erotic and watch it over and over again just to see some seductive garbage. But this was just very disturbing. I'll admit that Elizabeth Berkeley who was also from "Saved by the Bell" is very attractive, but her acting is like she's trying to be sexy. As gorgeous as she is, it didn't help out a lot. She shows her breasts.....too many times. I'll be honest as a man, I always wanted to see her boobs. But after the 3rd time, it got really tiring very fast. My reaction was, (YES, she has nice t*ts, enough!) Also....the plot was so disturbing. I just don't understand what the plot this is trying to show me, its just bizarre. This was really hard for me to sit through, it's not worth the time....okay, maybe just one sit through the movie if you like bizarre erotic films with lots of stripping, Elizabeth Berkeley's t*ts and lap dance, weird sex and mediocre softcore porn.… Full Review »
Dec 25, 2012One of the worst movies. It has decent acting compared to a porn movie. The acting is plain bad. The main character can only express twoOne of the worst movies. It has decent acting compared to a porn movie. The acting is plain bad. The main character can only express two feelings: anger and lust. The story is really the low end of Hollywood screenplays. It is nothing more than a soft-core porn movie. The girls were looking good. There is no other reason to see this.… Full Review »
Mar 11, 2013I am first of all going to point out what everyone else so has failed to do. Which is, point out that this film is LOADED with feminist ideas.I am first of all going to point out what everyone else so has failed to do. Which is, point out that this film is LOADED with feminist ideas. It's worth noting that the only positive review by an actual critic is also by a woman. Coincidence? My basic contention is that this film is merely masquerading as a high-camp sexploitation "comedy" (I didn't find it that funny). Instead, I found myself mostly admiring the protagonist, and at the point where your sympathy begins to wane, the film skillfully manipulates you once again back into that position. In a sense, this woman is a precursor to Joss Whedon's relaunch of Buffy, only this girl is more vulnerable, 'damaged', real. Secondly, if this really were a "man's" film, would literally EVERY single man in it be a giant sleezing, exploitative, repulsive d-bag? There is literally not one straight man in the film who is not completely abhorrent. Chris Katan has a brief scene as one of the gay male dancers, and all he does is make fun of another guy for being chauvinistic. And never are any of them 'forgiven' or presented sympathetically for the viewer to redeem.
• People are making the mistake that this film is supposed to be 'erotic'. It's not about eros, it's about exploitation, especially male exploitation of women—but not for the film. You'll notice that all the breasts and sex in the film function not to titillate the viewer, but to illustrate that every single one of them are doing this for economic advantage and are part of an exchange process. The film's protagonist is struggling to stay above what is regarded socially as the lowest rung of this economic ladder, and her attempts to hold onto dignity and respect are almost microcosmic precursors to the Slutwalk movement which demands the same thing. Furthermore, as a Canadian viewing this film, I find it particularly ironic the continual condemnation by critics of the prevalent presence of breasts—which, here, are perfectly legal and uncontroversial. Already armed with this disposition, it was perfectly obvious that they aren't there for me, the viewer's enjoyment—they're there because these are women who are *working* in an environment which demands it, and this film is about the difficulty existing in such an environment. Now, I would never actually give this film a "10"—but I am, for the purposes of improving its Metacritic rating, which I think is quite low. Oh, and at 2hrs11min long, really: would a be that long? Think about it.… Full Review »