I Like to Play Games Too (1998) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Not a bad soft-core sex flick, but they kind of messed up some good potential here.

They had the pedigree. This is the sequel to one of the best soft-cores ever made, one with good sex in good light and a good plot. 

 This one isn't nearly as good, for a couple of reasons
  • They forgot part of the formula, and this one is not as beautifully lit as the first
  • They cast the overexposed Maria Ford in the lead. If you like Maria, you'll like the film better than I did. I don't think she's very attractive to start with. Her face is average full-on, her profile is way below average, and her boobs are all too obviously artificial. (She does have a beautiful flat tummy, and a great tuchus.)
  • They should have spent a little more time on the script. The basic idea wasn't bad, but they got lazy, and after a while they didn't care about the details and just used the idea to move from sex scene to sex scene. There is no reason why they couldn't have made things more intelligent.

Here are some examples of what I mean by the lazy script:


pretty much non-stop nudity from Maria Ford.

Kim Dawson, Nenna Quiroz, and Stephanie LeFleur each have one sex scene.

Ford does a three-girl scene with Nancy O'Brien and Catalina Larranaga

Bobby Johnston shows his butt several times.

The general level of exposure is T&A and pubes. Open-leg shots are dark and far from the camera, no male genitalia at all. Oral sex is shown with no exposed genitalia from either sex. The sex scenes are somewhat artificial, since the couple always keeps their hips together to avoid getting the man's Johnson into the shot. 

 Implausibly, when Maria Ford is pitching a client to get his P.R. account, she goes through his computer files. In real life, nobody would hire her after seeing that, so she should be suspicious right there when the guy just ignores her spying. Of course, she was being set up, but she should have realized it. And then later she managed to hack into the files by just guessing common passwords like "sex" and "money". The script should cut out her spying on the guy in her job interview, and the implausible instant hacking, but if they wanted to use the spying, here's how I would have used it: Once the guy knew that she was curious about the files, he plants bogus information in them, plants a long complicated password in a notebook next to the computer, then leaves her alone in the room. Then, she would think she is really hacking, and the guy would plant lots of disinformation on her. 

Also, I wouldn't have let the film degenerate into the usual gun-pointing. I would have re-written the script so that the detective was not really a detective, there were no blackmails, and the ex-boyfriend was shot with blanks. If the movie is going to be about games, make them good games, not bullshit! Or better yet, let Maria Ford accidentally get the gun with blanks, think she is in danger, shoot someone, and the bogus detective arrests HER! That would be a really good game, and would have been totally believable in the context of the existing story.

But No-o-o. It has to turn out that the guy who is beating Maria at her own games is a famous international criminal, and she says "these games have gone too far". Complete wuss-out!

Speaking of implausible scripting, what about the entire premise. Maria leaves the ad firm to form her own consulting firm, and she ends up playing these games with her own clients. She has to win, so the games only go on until she dumps the guy because he's a wuss. Wait a minute! She always leaves her clients as emotional wrecks? H-m-m-m-m. So where does she expect to get her future clients from? Word of mouth referrals? Needless to say, her business would dry up. Screwing your clients is OK. Screwing them OVER, however,  is not exactly a business plan out of Harvard Business School (which, by the way, is the character's alma mater.) 

And why does the script call for Maria Ford to dress like a low-rent streetwalker? That would be OK once she starts playing games, but she always dresses like that, even for initial business presentations. I guess the answer is that the people who made the film don't know how sexy professional women dress. I suppose they think that they wear platform shoes, leather mini-skirts, fish-net stockings, and bright red lipstick outlined in brown. 

DVD info from Amazon.

  • no widescreen

  • no features

You know, I don't think that concept would be so hard to research. A quick lunch in the Wall Street area would give you the general idea. As I recall, a couple of years ago, the women who tried to show off their wares would wear those double breasted business suits with no bra, which would look all Hillary Clinton from the front and one side, but from the other side would give all these tantalizing glimpses. Then they would sit in the right place in the room so that the intended guy would see the goods, but nobody else would know what was going on. (Many thanks to Joanna at Shell U.K, in the unlikely event you read this!)

The Critics Vote

  • no major reviews on line

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 5.2, which is pretty high for a soft-core sex flick. 
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, assuming its genre is soft-core sex-flick. If you don't like those, skip it, because its not good enough to have crossover appeal. 

Return to the Movie House home page