Dangerous Attraction

Add to that the following problems:

1) Andrea Roth stars in a sex-filled film, but uses a double who may have more screen time than she does.
2) Rae Dawn Chong is in the film, but completely dressed.
3) The audience is let in on the ending at about the half-way point.
4) The use of the double caused endless continuity problems (how many women do you know that put their bra back on while having sex?)

There were two plusses. First, they identified the double (Adrienne Board), and even showed a little of her face. Second, they had Maria Delver, AKA Marya Delver topless in a sub-plot as cybercafe hostess, girlfriend of the police lieutenant.

no DVD available for sale.

Scoop's comments:

This film was nominated for a Leo award (Best Director). The Leo's are the movie and television industry awards for productions made in British Columbia. This is generally considered even more prestigious than the Dayo awards, which are given only to movies which feature calypso music, and the Thee-o awards, given annually to the best Amish movies. Well, at least in theory, since the Amish community has not yet sanctioned any film productions.

However, it is worthwhile to note that only three theatrical films were eligible for awards in the Leo movie category, and this film didn't win any. For the record, three of the four film awards (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Female Performance) went to a movie entitled "My Father's Angel", and the other one (Best Male Performance) went to a made-for-TV movie rather than anything Dangerous Attraction had to offer!

In other words, the producers of Dangerous Attraction might think about cutting in some Belafonte tunes and resubmitting to the Dayo's. I believe Canadian Calypso is eligible

Everybody now.

All day, all night, Marianne

Under de snow now, siftin' sand.

All de hockey players love her, eh?

Hey, my Marianne, OK?

The Critics Vote

no reviews

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it a surprisingly high 5.8

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 D-. At best.