Dangerous Touch

Dangerous Touch can be summed up as follows.

Dean Wormer's daughter plays a beautiful and really horny radio psychologist. Her best friend keeps warning her that indiscriminate sexual behavior will get her in trouble, but she ignores the warnings and continues to seek the sexy thrills. Enter superstud Richie Valens, who seems to want her for sexual adventures, but actually seduces her for a completely different reason - to blackmail her into giving up some privileged patient information that will enable him to get some revenge against the guy who played WoJo on Barney Miller. This time, WoJo is playing a powerful crime boss whose dirty dealings once cost Richie Valens three years in the hoosegow.

She won't surrender the confidential files, so all the gangsters start fucking each other over and fucking her over or just plain fucking her. It gets ugly. Richie Valens even has to kill the Wishmaster at one point. Guess what - that Wishmaster voice is not Divoff's real voice. I never realized it was artifically enhanced for those flicks. I just thought he was a nice, albeit creepy-lookin' Russian-American boy who could talk like Darth Vader.

Richie Valens not only starred, but actually directed and wrote this film as well! A real Orson Welles, that boy. Well, it isn't half bad. It isn't Citizen Kane, but it doesn't try to be. He set out to make an erotic thriller with a lot of sex and a fairly good plot to move it forward, and he did all that, so Dangerous Touch is a satisfactory erotic thriller. On the thriller side, the film has enough twists and turns that I watched it at regular speed. On the erotic side, it does not cheat on the sex and nudity. I have to conclude that ol' Richie did a lot better than, for example, Soul Man did as the actor, writer, and director of "Hourglass".

It would be a C as an erotic thriller were there no mitigating circumstances. Unfortunately, I had to bump it down to an F because Richie never sang "La Bamba", WoJo never had coffee with Fish, Wishmaster never granted a single twisted wish, and Wormer's daughter did not release the Deltas from double secret probation.

I reviewed this film back in 1999, but I just looked at it again because I previously reviewed the R-rated version, and it came to my attention that there is an unrated version which is 5 minutes longer. (The R-rated version is 97 minutes long, while the unrated version runs approximately 102 minutes.) The unrated version has a lengthy lesbian scene between Monique Parent and Kate Vernon. Almost all of the extra exposure is Parent, not Vernon. I didn't see any unexpected images of Vernon, but I saw full-frontal Parent action that was new to me. It occurred in the lesbian scene, as a completely naked and freshly showered Parent made herself very cozy with a fully dressed Vernon.

Dangerous Touch DVD Lou Diamond Phillips Kate Vernon (1994)

The DVD to the left is the unrated full-screen version which shows every bit of the nudity. Don't get the R-rated widescreen version which is available as part of a four DVD set.

NUDITY REPORT

Kate Vernon- breasts in many scenes

Monique Parent - full frontal throughout a lengthy scene which begins in the shower and ends in some hot-girl-on-girl action.

Lou Diamond Phillips - buns in many scenes, but no frontal.

The Critics Vote ...

No major reviews online

The People Vote ...

IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 4.2/10. That may be OK for the R-rated version. The unrated version could be rated a bit higher.

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 C. It's not Casablanca, but is an acceptable erotic thriller which is both fairly erotic and fairly interesting. It features famous people getting naked often, a reasonably good plot, and some moderately good characterization. Not so bad at all. If you like STV erotic thrillers, it should meet your criteria.