The Fluffer (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Let me put it to you this way. Don't get confused with "Flubber" and rent this for your kids.

A fluffer is a man or woman whose job it is to keep male porn stars erect or semi-erect for those crucial moments when ya just can't afford any shrinkage. There are the regular fluffers who work directly on the penis, and those who operate on the testicles, called fluffernutters.

NUDITY REPORT

male - buns from Scott Gurney (twice)

female - nipples from Roxanne Day

In this particular movie, the subject is gay porn, so the fluffer is a gay male. In fact, he is a naive young gay male, new to the big city, who falls in love with the guy he fluffs. That is more complicated than you think. The gay porn star, Johnny Rebel, is not gay. There's no money in being a male in hetero porn because of the law of supply and demand, so a lot of guys cross over and become "gay for pay". It isn't as bad as you might thing. Johnny Rebel just stands around and get blown or plays with himself, leaving the other male-male contact to the gay guys.

Fun for the whole family.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • widescreen letterboxed, 1.85

  • deleted scenes

  • full-length commentary

  • stills and "Johnny Rebel" video boxes

This movie begins as a portrait of the porn industry, almost a bitterly comical exposť, but gradually morphs into a character study of lives lived in excess.

  • The first half was far more interesting to me, quite original and fresh, and often funny.
  • The second half, however, was more like a "drugs and porn suck" message in convenient soap opera form. That doesn't seem to me to be much of a revelation, nor is the soap opera format one which I enjoy. Given that I'm not interested in gay porn either, the second half of the movie really dragged.

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus in the U.K.: two and a half stars. Daily Telegraph 8/10, The Guardian 6/10, The Times 6/10, Evening Standard 5/10, The Express 4/10

The People Vote ...

  • with their dollars: grossed half a million dollars in the USA, in specialty distribution (6 theaters!). It is still playing theatrically as I write this, even though the DVD is out.

 

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, I guess, the genre being offbeat love stories. It can't be too bad, because I'm not interested in gay porn, and watched it all the way through, not without some fascination.

Return to the Movie House home page