AniInterview
Sorry, this movie sucks
BoardChiri
Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay
Fatma Suarez
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
Toucan Sam
Looking for quality acting, a seamless plot and thrilling plot twists? Then keep looking, because this ain't it. The acting is terrible, the plot is virtually nonexistent, and the closest thing you get to a plot twist is Nikki Fritz's attempts at remembering her lines. This movie has hot chicks, T&A, and a lot of everything in between. There's no real reason why anyone does what the do and by the end you forgot what the movie was about in the first place, but that's OK. A few too many butt shots of the guys for my tastes, but not too many to kill your rhythm. The way to enjoy movies like this is to fast-forward over all the plot garbage and get to the real reason you're watching this in the first place.As far as a movie goes, it gets a 1. As far as a skin flick goes, it gets a 10. I give it the average, a 5.
rlcsljo
This film was edited with a meat axe in order to cut out the sex scenes and to make up for the time, they apparently edited in some non-sexual footage from their other films. This means that most of the film has Veronica and two other models doing a lot of lingerie modeling, with some, mostly, irrelevant plot and lines of dialog thrown in (occasional breast flashes and uncovered butts appear, however). Gee, you come from the year 2030, where there is no sex back to 2000 where there is no sex--yawn!However, the Victoria's secret lingerie show was one of the highest rated shows of the season. And Julia and the others certainly have silicone enhance bodies on par with some the the highest paid supermodels and show the gorgeous see-through body stockings, thong panties, and fishnet unmentionables very well.If your are a Surrender cinema fan, get the un-rated, but for those of you with slightly less carnal tastes, this film is definitely worth a look.
monsters from the id
As Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes that "R" rating is really an accurate appraisal from the MPAA. At an hour nineteen, this movie clearly weighed in light on the scales, which was not a good sign.The story centers around Julia (skip the last name.it worked for Cher and Madonna, right?) playing a pleasure model named Veronica from the year 2030, who, after some unauthorized late-night tests, is catapulted back into the past. Options being limited for pleasure 'droids from the future, Veronica gets a job modeling for a lingerie catalogue. Not exactly a Pulitzer Prize winning plot, but enough of a premise to satisfy late night cable audiences. That is, it would be if there were any stuffing inside this doughy, inedible confection.We do have a few glimpses of Julia, who is admittedly luscious, with her off-the-shelf breasts, her two charming little tattoos, and false eyelashes that look like twin tarantulas crawling on her eyes. But inevitably the camera gets coy at crucial moments. Exhibit A is a torrid dance scene with Julia, wearing only a net body stocking and a pair of high heels. But even if she proves that The Girl Can Dance, the scene is over in the blink of a voyeur's eye. Exhibits B and C are the few heated moments as the girls model some fetish fashions. But the leather and chains are strictly for a niche market and fail to meet even the Minimum Daily Requirements.The pneumatic Nikki Fritz plays a ruthless businesswoman doing business from the back seat of her limo: barking out orders on her cell phone; being worshipped by muscular stallions; appearing in an Academy Award parade of designer gowns. Everything, in fact, except what she does best.which is get naked and heat up the screen. There is one feeble attempt at a love scene, where Nikki appears naked for a nanosecond before the screen fades to a prim and proper black.In fact, as the Bruce Willis talking action-figure on my desk says, "This movie has more blackouts than London during the war". Every time the on-screen thermometer begins to rise above tepid, the scene fades to black.The third time I fished this undernourished specimen out of the late-night cable waters, I decided to rent the unrated version. It immediately added the heft of about fifteen minutes, correcting the single most important deficiency of the "R" version.nudity. We have boy meets girl, girl meets girl, boy meets two girls and so on - with all of the scenes providing copious amounts of naked flesh and cheap thrills. Fashions shows begin in lingerie and end in nothing but skin. (And for some odd reason, there is also a lot of licking in this film; I haven't seen that much tongue since my last trip to my local deli.) There is even an interlude where Julia and Nikki get a chance to bump bodies. Watching these two works of art roll around in a four-poster bed, I am mystified that anyone could bear to edit out that scene.All of which reminds me of the time, a few years back, when a video rental mega-store was in a quandary about a recent release. On the one hand, they couldn't ignore a new release from a major studio; but they also couldn't risk offended the Family Values crowd by renting out an "NC-17" movie. So they compromised and put an "R" version on the shelves. "Showgirls" without the nudity? Why bother?Same deal here.
Doug Alderman
This movie spends a lot of time inserting clips from other films from the production company (Surrender.) Some plot is injected at times, masking the true purpose of the picture - sex. The real treat for the viewer is, of course, the breast scenes. They're in there. And you'll wait until the middle of the movie to see those of the straight-laced, hair-in-a-bun scientist lady.Good one if you're lonely on a Friday night...
