The Bitch (1979) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Joan Collins and Jackie Collins had a pretty good thing going there for while. Jackie wrote sleazy chick-novels about powerful, rich, conniving women. These books made perfect film vehicles for, and guaranteed full employment for, her sister Joan. Joan acted in these films, presumably drawing in some additional fans with her name recognition, and even managing to draw in some male viewers with extensive nudity.

The challenge with a film like this is the same as the challenge with a softcore film. You either have to show plenty of hot sex, or have some pretty good sex in an interesting story. If you can have both hot sex and a good plot, you have a masterpiece of sexually-oriented cinema, but you can count all those masterpieces on one hand, so most films can only hope to deliver one or t'other.

You know a Joan Collins film isn't going to be the kind with lots of hot sex. Joan is one of those pseudo-upper-crusty types who tries to maintain her aloof dignity. The terms "hot sex" and "dignity" don't really go together. Hot sex is sweaty, uninhibited, sometime nasty, sometimes clumsy, always passionate, never aloof. The filmmaker, therefore, has only one way to succeed with a Collins vehicle. He must concentrate on a strong tease factor with a good storyline.

The film does deliver fairly well on "strong tease". Miss Collins gets topless several times, and flashes some buns. Several other females flash other body parts including pubic areas. The male star brought out Captain Helmet a couple of times.  In general, the tease would have been adequate to spice up a good story.


  • Joan Collins - boobs and buns
  • Sue Lloyd - boobs and buns
  • Pamela Salem - boobs, side of hips
  • Several others nude, including frontals. (Anon.)
  • Antonio Cantafora - penis is visible in two scenes
Unfortunately, the good story never showed up. The plot is good for about two or three minutes of running time. The rest of the film is filler.
  • There is 10-15 minutes of footage of people dancing to disco music. These are not expert dancers engaged in a showy demonstration of brilliant moves, ala Saturday Night Fever. These are not famous people. These are not good dancers. They are just random people dancing, If you want to imagine the experience, go to a dancing club with flashing floor panels and the dreaded disco ball. Sit there soberly and watch other people dance. Actually, that experience would be far better than watching this movie, because at least you can smell the women's perfume as they walk by.
  • The sex scenes go on too long. In a film like this, where people have dignified, missionary position or straight woman-on-top sex under the covers, the sex scenes need to be brief. Show me whatever body parts I'm going to see and move on. Watching people undulate beneath a coverlet is not very entertaining, less and less so as it drags on.
  • The background score? Well, imagine the worst possible disco songs like Disco Lucy, and That's the Way (Uh-huh Uh-huh) I Like It. The entire score for this film consists of that kind of crap. Not those exact songs, but other, non-famous but kinda sorta familiar-sounding songs.
  • Cliff Klaven from Cheers as a disco denizen in London? Cliffy is dancing his heart out (a sight to see), and is also a criminal! Norm is not to be seen, which is a shame, because Norm's dancing would have added a much-needed sense of humor to this film.

Region 2 DVD info from Amazon UK

  • no features, no widescreen

  • disk also includes The Stud.

  • The editing is incomprehensible, rendering the entire film completely confusing. The director just didn't seem to care. There are several examples of bizarre editing, but one scene sums it up. Joan Collins and the male star arrive at a country home. The people who own the estate greet them outside the house. The men are wearing suit jackets. Neither the men or the women are wearing overcoats. It is obviously late summer or early autumn. They laugh, exchange pleasantries, and head inside to have a stiff drink. CUT. Now everyone is sitting outside in the snow, shivering.

The Critics Vote ...

  • no reviews online

The People Vote ...

  • IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 2.6/10, which is about as low as it goes.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a D-.

Return to the Movie House home page