Hard as Nails (2001) from Tuna and Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Tuna's comments

Hard as Nails (2001) is a direct to vid issued by Roger Corman's New Concord distributing company. It is a crime/action/soft-core, and would be  yet another in the recent crop of pretty good soft-cores except for the transfer, which is grainier than the beach at Hilo. Still, if you sit far enough away from the screen, it is not a bad watch. The film includes Yakuza, ninjas, Russian Mafia, strippers, hookers and cops. With all of  that culture to choose from, it is no wonder that we had Kung Fu, swordplay, gunfights, vodka drinking, screwing, and lots of tits. The tits included Lorissa McComas, Kim Yates, Stella Farentino and a host of anonymous sex therapists. 
You want tits and action, with a plot that is only half stupid, and decent acting, give this one a try.

NUDITY REPORT
see Tuna's main commentary in white
Scoopy's comments in yellow:

Well don't line up for it, but Tuna hit the highlights. It would be an excellent softcore film if it had a good print/transfer. Or, you can think of it as an OK grade-b with an exceptionally large quantity of bare breasts. Either way it's an OK watch for breast fanciers. 

DVD info from Amazon.

  • no widescreen 

  • no significant features

If it had no nudity, it would be a pure testosterone grade-b flick with a larger budget than we would normally see in a straight-to-vid flick. It has a lot of action - martial arts, shoot-outs, car chases, explosions, hyper- violence, that kind of stuff. In the middle of it is a convoluted plot about an undercover cop caught between rival crime syndicates, and an innocent young couple that gets caught and killed by the whirlwind of bullets.

Personally, I prefer my breasts to be accompanied by plot rather than bullets, but if you like the combination of sex and violence, this is a reasonably good example except for the poor quality of the transfer. 

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews on line

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: not enough votes for a score 
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 (Tuna) to C- (Scoopy).

Return to the Movie House home page