The Sex Files: Digital Sex

The Sex Files: Digital Sex (1998), even though it is a made for cable softcore, is the most inspirational film I have seen in five years. Here's the reason. The producer, Alain Siritsky of Emmanuelle fame, is about 30% of the way to an inspired get-rich-quick scheme.

Start by hanging out in alleys behind porno editing labs in "The Valley," and collect all of the film clippings from the dumpster. Get at least 40 pounds, or you may blow your 24 hour production schedule. Next, get Christina Applegate and Dolly Parton to agree to cameo appearances in a film called Days of our Lives. When Dolly arrives, have wardrobe get her out of her bra, into a dumpy housecoat, and over to makeup. Have makeup scrape off her make-up. This will take some time, so lets get the shots of Applegate while we are waiting. We need shots of her looking at a piece of paper, looking at a VHS cassette, gazing into space, putting a cassette into a player, and taking it out. No dialogue is required.

"I suppose Grannie chose me to sort through her things after her death because I was always her favorite. I loved her a lot, and always thought of her as one of the happiest people I knew ... " Cut to still of Dolly, grin from ear to ear, her boobs bouncing gently on her kneecaps ... "Who would have suspected what it was that made her so cheerful?"

Insert shot of Applegate looking at VHS tape. Splice in about 10 minutes of the out takes you salvaged from the trash. If some pieces don't fit together smoothly, do quick cut, or add a strobe effect to mask the problems. Follow this with Applegate putting another tape in, and voice-over, "And that was just the tip of the iceberg." You get the idea. We need to fill around 90 minutes, so use the footage you actually shot sparingly. When you hit the desired length, the ending looks like this. Applegate is staring into space. Voice-over says, "I am beginning to think Grams had the right idea all along." Cut to Dolly juggling her jugs soccer style at the kitchen sink. Slow fade.

We now have a film shot in two hours, and assembled in much less than a week. Now comes the real genius. For the ad art (and the DVD case) we have head shots of Dolly and Christina superimposed over a frame from the out takes. The title? "As numerous as the pervs in a brothel, so are the Daze of our Lives featuring Christina Applegate and Dolly Parton. Unveil your Web site, and start accepting preorders. When they start to fall off, leak the fact that Dolly and Christina are featured in a soon-to-be-released softcore on an imaging Bulletin Board. Be sure to thank Star and the National Enquirer for the free advertising when they report on the two lawsuits.

Release the DVD. It wont take long for someone to spread the word that it is a rip-off, but you already have all of the pre-sales. Then, post to a few newsgroups that there are two versions of the film, and the exposure is only in the first one. The law suits caused the best stuff to be edited out. Tell them the only way to tell them apart is that the good one has a blurry middle digit in the UPC. Someone will write a review at CNDB armed with this little known information, and your sales should continue for a very long time.

DVD info from Amazon.

no features

What does this have to do with the images? Nothing. They invented a pretext (thought recorder/player ala Brainstorm) as the excuse to insert random out-takes of soft-core footage. Where they missed the boat was having the two crooks who steal the device, several crooks who want to by it, and two secret agents who are trying to get it back in a total of about 20 minutes of screen time. As I have shown above, it was a total waste of time, money, sets and locations. They just didn't think hard enough about their pretext. Also, they failed to have a big name in the cast.

IMDB has it way too high at 3.2/10. It would be much lower if they had a 0/10 choice. Nobody else will admit that they were stupid enough to see it.

The Critics Vote

no reviews

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 3.2

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.