The Body Chemistry 3 (1994) from Tuna
Body 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 REPORT
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.  

DVD info from Amazon.

no features

no widescreen version
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 one scene.

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.

The Critics Vote

  • no major reviews 

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 3.1, 
IMDb 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 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. 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+.

Return to the Movie House home page