NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

johnstonjames eegads. this was all really strange and dirty minded. but i had a "ball" (baw haw haw) anyway. i think that erotica and sexually explicit material is a fact of life and probably a necessity. what is it they say? if there wasn't porno most guys would end up raping everyone. knowing the testosteroned, out of control libido of most of the 21 yr. old males in this country, that's probably true. as for the rest of us who keep it in check because we are Christian, or modest or civic minded and concerned with reputation, porno is somewhat of an embarrassment and a tiresome pester. i don't think sex is evil, i just get tired of everyone putting so much damn emphasis on it. according to some (probably most) people, sex is the meaning of life. ZZZZZZZZ. so boring, and sooooo typical of everyone.hence, i try to stay away from pornography. i've watched it, but it ultimately embarrasses me, and who wants to watch others flaunt their promiscuity like it's a gift to you or something.be that as it may, i have a funny tendency to like porno sex musicals. dunno. i guess i love the musical genre so much, i pretty much will watch anything that's a musical. i also happen to like musicals that break formula. Rodgers and Hammerstein would probably self destruct in their graves if they saw some of the musicals i like.'Cinderella 2000' is one of the very first in this iconoclastic form and in my opinion, one of the best. not hard to do since there aren't a whole lot in the first place. my favorite is 'Alice in Wonderland' with Kristine DeBell. i also thought that the X rated 'Cinderella' with Cheryl Rainbeaux Smith was better than this. but i like Al Adamson and i like anything this freak'in weird. and it was a lot better than the boring and stupid 'Nudie Musical' with that 'Laverne and Shirley' chick.considering the non existent budget for this, it is really very elaborate. i mean, hey, it was filmed in Todd A-O, an expensive process, and the syncing of the music was as good as any major production. even though the costume design was El cheapo, Cinderella's ball gown was very pretty.i'm not saying that i wasn't scared or afraid of some of this. the Fairy godfather was pretty creepy in that ugly Englishman sort of way, and the whole musical number "we all need love" was so weird it's given me nightmares for life. and the stepmother was rather ugly and bizarre. i'm glad she didn't strip. the whole thing with Roscoe the Robot singing "where do ah plug it in", made me want to start screaming and blow a brain fuse. definitely all pretty disturbing, but hilarious.i also don't know why all the filthy schmucks who reviewed this kept screaming about that stupid Sherrie broad. the dumb bimbo only had a minor role and it wasn't impressive. the film's star, Catherine Erhardt was so much better and had a very nice singing voice. and yes, i read the booklet and Erhardt did her own singing as did Kristine DeBell in 'Alice'. so lets dispense with that doubtful nonsense altogether.i'm sure this version would have freaked the Brother's Grim out. it freaks me out. for those who like to mix love with lust, and throw in a helping heaping of sexual shenanigans, this is the Cinderella story for you.

elecutrix This movie was a typical low-budget Al Adamson sci-fi flick. Most of the actors were sub-par, with the exception of Sherri Coyle. She is absolutely gorgeous in the opening scene with Art Carcaro as they attempt to figure out how to make love. Her body is curvaceous, her hair long and silky and her eyes sultry. She makes you wish you were there with her. Then Roscoe the Robot and his stormtroopers barge in, catching Sherri and Art "in the act". The poor things are then taken away for punishment.While in the Reduction Chamber, and after the silly video from the Central Controller, Adamson manages to sneak in a subtle hint of lesbianism in Stella, the reducer. While preparing Sherri for reduction, Stella deliberately and flirtatiously disrobes Sherri by removing her plastic bubble wrapping covering, revealing her beauty. Stella is loving every minute of this! While Sherri turns to Art and struggles to comprehend what is about to happen to her, Stella softly touches Sherri's face and turns Sherri's head in her direction as if to say, "It will be okay. I'll take care of you". Too bad the scene then breaks away to other nonsense. I would have liked to see it develop more.After more nonsense, we then return to the Reduction Chamber and Sherri is all beautifully laid out on the reducing table, completely nude. I found this highly arousing. (So did Sherri - her nipples are erect.) The door to the Chamber opens, Roscoe returns and he orders the reduction of Sherri to "Proceed". Sherri just lays there, shakes her head and closes her eyes, thinking, I can't believe this is happening to me! She is totally vulnerable. Stella then flicks some dials on her console and then looks at Sherri as she pulls the lever to begin Sherri's reduction. Adamson was smart enough to give us an overhead view of Sherri's reduction and as we watch her beautiful figure shrink to about 12 inches in height. She looked beautiful throughout. It is too bad we don't see what happens to her after this scene. She unfortunately is "reduced" right out of the plot. It is also too bad that Adamson didn't have other scenes with other babes getting reduced in the Chamber.I loved this scene. It was stunning. Sherri made for a lovely Reductee. I have fantasized about this involving all my girlfriends since the first time I saw it about fifteen years ago. I hope I am living in 2047, so I can see my dreams come true.Without Sherri Coyle, this flick would have been a total flop.

L. Denis Brown Life in some future fascist or near fascist state which severely restricts personal freedoms is a recurrent theme both in modern literature and for film makers. Such works post us warnings about undesirable trends in our society to watch out for; but to be effective they must also be entertaining. Unfortunately most of the books are probably more effective in posting the warnings than in entertaining us enough to become really widely read; whilst with the films the problem is usually the other way round. The first such work to become really widely known was probably George Orwell's "1984" (first published in 1948), and this is still readily available both in the form of a book and as a film.Watch or read it: and then, when you are feeling a little depressed by man's inhumanity to man, reach for Cinderella 2000. This is a feather light low budget film comedy based on the same theme which provides effortless but unrewarding viewing; and as with 1984 the calendar has now passed beyond its erstwhile period. Most of the comedy is laid on with a trowel although there are just a few genuinely funny moments. To exercise your mind in the long intervals between these you can focus it on the question of whether this film will gain a new extension of life by being released as a DVD or whether it will finally disappear into oblivion as existing tape copies deteriorate past redemption. There are many worse films appearing as DVD's these days, and frankly I do not care much what happens either way.So far the best of the films of this genre has probably been "The Handmaiden's Tale", but I would very happily swap them all for a well made film of Jack London's towering novel "The Iron Heel". Ambitious as this would be, it still seems incredible that no modern film maker has yet dared to attempt it (IMDb only lists a B/W silent version made in Russia in 1919).

XXX-man ***SPOILERS AHEAD***Hey, how about an X-rated sci-fi musical based (albeit VERY loosely) on the classic Cinderella story? If you're like me, that sounds like a fun night at the movies. Of course, if you're like me, that's why you so often end up watching stupid movies like this.It starts out with the dopey title song playing over a credit sequence that looks like something produced by my circa-1980 Radio Shack PC. Then the plot kicks in. It's the future, where sex is illegal and everyone feels compelled to periodically break out in mediocre song-and-dance numbers and/or make bad sex-related jokes. Anybody who tries to break the no-sex law is interrupted by a robot that barges in shrieking, "Fornication without sanction! Fornication without sanction!" Will our heroes defeat the forces of prudery? This thing was directed by Al Adamson, which should tell you something right there. Old Al didn't have the dimmest idea how to choreograph and shoot musical sequences, and so this movie tends to look like a bad school play performed by ten year olds. Somebody should have at least taught Al how to pan the camera when the actors temporarily move out of frame. Sets and costumes are all bottom-barrel sci-fi cheese. Songs are mostly tedious, with the possible exception of "We All Need Love," which has the ability to stick in one's head for, oh, I don't know, maybe ten minutes afterward. The non-stop sexual innuendo is juvenile and tiresome. Like most films of this type, it's not nearly as witty and randy as it's supposed to be. I never thought I'd see a movie that came off like a poor man's version of THE APPLE (1980), but here you are. I liked THE APPLE; it's a fun bad movie, unique in its zesty insanity. Cinderella 2000 is just boring.