The Body Chemistry 3
Chemistry III (1994) is, to me, the best yet in the series, even
though the IMDB readers have it at 3.1/10. The filmmakers increased
the exposure and simulated sex to the point that this could almost be
classed as a soft-core, but it does have many sub-plots and sub-texts
that would make it one of the better ones. Dr. Claire is now played by
Shari Shattuck, who is naked for at least half of her screen time. She
is now host of a cable TV talk show. Andrew Stevens is a made-for-TV
movie producer, and wants to make her story into a movie. His wife,
actress Morgan Fairchild would do nearly anything for the lead, as she
has been trying to break out of her mold as the mousy woman on a soap.
|Chick Vennera, who plays
the associate of the lab director who was killed in number one, has
written a screenplay of that whole sordid story.
Oh, oh. The good Dr doesn't want that
story coming out, so Dr. Claire seduces Stevens repeatedly before she
agrees to the film.
|Nudity? Of course.
It's a soft core. See the commentary for details.
|Claire isn't into pain in
this film, but is into danger to increase the excitement. She is
constantly seducing him when his wife is nearby. He tries to break it
off with Dr. Claire, and that REALLY pisses her off. The films ends
with two corpses, and a live Dr. Claire for another sequel.
||I have to say C+ on this one, as it
works in two genres. As a softcore, it is a solid C, with an ok story,
lots of nudity, and reasonably hot simulated sex. The camera angles
change enough that the sex does not become boring. As a thriller, it
builds dramatic tension very well, so C in that genre. I would love to
know what is sticking up from his crotch and between her legs in that
Scoop's note: Another
Wynorski masterpiece! Any movie that reunites Morgan Fairchild and
Andre Stevens is OK with me. That's the grade-z equivalent of
reteaming Bogie and Sydney Greenstreet.
- With their
votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters
score it 3.1,
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
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. 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.
Based on this
description, this film is a C+.
the Movie House home page