I actually saw this when it first came out, back in the
last great days of the drive-in movies. I was disappointed then, and
I'm still disappointed. This movie could have been a funny spoof of
could have been raunchy fun, ala Flesh Gordon. It could have had some edge. It succeeded
at none of those things. The most accurate word I can use to describe
it is "quaint". My second choice would have been "amateurish".
The level of humor is sub-adolescent. Examples:
"Gentlemen, we can all be millionaires". "Yeah, but can
we make any money?" (Wouldn't you love to ask the writer why he
thought that was funny?)
"Are you willing to perform in the nude?" "Sure, as
long as I don't havta take my clothes off"
"Can you sing some scales?" "Sure. (Singing) Scales!
"Thank you, Mr Schekler" "That's Schlechter!"
100 times, or more as needed.)
Pretty funny stuff, eh?
DVD info from Amazon
• Commentary by Cindy Williams,
Stephen Nathan, and Bruce Kimmel
• Commentary by writer/co-director Bruce Kimmel and Nick Redman
• Includes free CD soundtrack (quantity limited to first
pressing of DVDs only)
• "From Dollars to Donuts: An Undressing of The First Nudie
Musical" documentary (55 min.) with optional audio
commentary by Bruce Kimmel, Nick Redman, and Michael Rosendale
• Deleted scene (The Plumber Scene) with optional audio
• Deleted musical number (Where Is a Man?) with optional audio
• Photo gallery
• Widescreen anamorphic format, 1.78:1
I regret to say that those lines were better written
than performed, hard though that may be to believe, or even to
conceive. Not one single person in the film can act, sing, or dance
well enough to qualify for a high school musical.
On the other hand, "quaint" does have it charms,
and the film has developed a small cult following. The
dildo dance is silly. There is plenty of female frontal nudity. (And
some male as well). And there is really nothing else quite like it. It
is interesting to watch as a sample of the way we were, and the way we
had just barely enough sense not to be.
"Gotta sing, gotta dance
While I’m taking off my pants"
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-. It may not be good, but it is unique. I'd say it
is probably in the category of "amusingly awful". It may be
worth a look if you want to see something odd.