MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

hsjones2112 If crappier films were made at the time, they didn't hit your local theatre. But this one probably did. Yes, the dirty old man in me appreciates Phoebe Cates in full nude. I'll be honest about that. (Perhaps there's a fan edit that qualifies a good soft-core porn?) But there is no other justification for watching this. Take my advice and use your bandwidth more wisely.

SnoopyStyle It's 1823 Baghdad. Sarah Scott (Phoebe Cates) from London catches the eye of slave trader Jackal. She's traveling with the family's loyal servant Geoffrey. David McBride (Willie Aames) is traveling with his missionary parents from Boston. The McBrides joins them in the caravan to Damascus. They are attacked at a stop by Jackal who wants Sarah for himself. Sarah and David manage to escape with Geoffrey but everybody else are massacred or taken as slaves. Geoffrey contacts a Bedouin group but it turns out to be the Jackal and he's killed. Sarah and David manages to find an oasis where they live together in isolation.This tries to be 'The Blue Lagoon' in the desert except it has a bit more porn, soft-core porn. They find a beautiful cave shower for Phoebe Cates to get naked in. The cheese factor is pretty high. In order to copy Blue Lagoon, the young couple manages to get to the sea so that they could do the underwater naked filming. There are even two chimp companions for comic relief. It's pretty sad and on top of it all, it's inherently a copy of another B-movie.

preppy-3 Silly rehash of "The Blue Lagoon". The plot is pointless--this was just made to show Willie Aames and Phoebe Cates as nude as many times as an R rating would allow.Now I like "The Blue Lagoon". Yes it's stupid but Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins had nice bodies and were actually not bad as actors. Beautiful cinematography too. As for this movie--Aames and Cates are young and have great bodies too--but they can't act. The nudity can only carry this movie so far. Without that you're left with a boring story and lousy actors. When I saw it at a theatre the audience was quiet--at first. After the first two nude scenes people started to walk out. Then people started giggling at the horrendous acting. By the end of the film most of the audience was in hysterics laughing out loud at this. I think the part that really set them off was when they showed the monkey miming what Aames did when he "pleasured" himself. That aside the characters were totally obnoxious. Aames comes across as a spoiled brat--Cates came across as not having a brain. Heck, this doesn't even have the beautiful shots that "Blue Lagoom" had! Unless you're desperate to see these two actors nude you can skip this.

jbruceismay-1 As to the previous comment that the movie is not worth seeing, any movie showing a half-naked, young Phoebe Cates IS worth viewing, (at least for a straight male or gay female). Just get it on DD and fast forward through the boring parts.Admittedly, the story is silly and predictable. ALso, for me, I identify W. Aames with Charles in Charge, where he was the perpetual dummy. I realize it's just a role, but it's hard for me to see him as a woman's version of a sex symbol.But the story aside, the photography and surroundings are beautiful, as of course is P. Cates. And since most of us can now get movies for free from the local library, or virtually free from the usual sources, it's worth an hour, just don't have unrealistic expectations. (BTW, it's not as if Blue Lagoon was an artistic masterpiece either, just a little less silly than Paradise.