by Greg Muskewitz
You might wonder why I am bothering to review a pornographic movie, and one (actually two of them) as retro as the late-Seventies. But if theyíre going to play this at a respectable art house theatre, why not. Apparently these are, or were, some hot stuff in their own time, but with the ingenious idea of shooting them in 3-D (with a process called "DeepScope"), which warrants plenty of "spray your way." Of course it would only be too easy to further fault the cheesy, sordid movie for the fact that we werenít given proper 3-D glasses, but "specter glasses" instead (which do nothing but give you a headache), so Iíll fault the theatre, Landmark, instead. (That is, unless it was the releasing studioís fault, at which point I will retract my blame and assert it somewhere else.)This could by no means be considered soft-porn, but by the same rule, I donít think it would qualify as hardcore either. Iíve never watched a porno before, unless you count a release from France last year called "Romance." I admit I have seen parts of one a year or so ago, but as it was my sneaking suspicion before I saw those pieces, and as it was confirmed after, full-on "fucking" is not nearly as erotic or sexy or arousing as the simulated sex in movies. Itís too raunchy, too unappealing. And as "The Disco Dolls in Hot Skin" and "The Lollipop Girls in Hard Candy" will certify, it isnít arousing or exciting. Itís corny and vulgar.
"My first dabble into porn."
With the total elimination of sex in "Hot Skin," the story is about a guy (John Holmes, I believe, but no closing credits to indicate for those of us who are not aficionados) who likes this hot girl, Jennifer (Leslie Bovee, who reminds me of Claudia Schiffer), but after oral sex, he can no longer stay erect for her. Otherwise, any other girl who randomly offers it to him whether while passing on the stairwell, while in a conference, etc., he can handle that.
Then a friend of his approaches him to help capture a villain, Harry Balls (Bill Margold), who is currently "fucking" Leslie everytime we see them. The pseudonymic screenwriters, Mark Thunderbuns and Ann Onymous often like to have fun with Ballsí name in a similarly structured, but not even an iota as funny version of "Whoís on FirstÖ"
A wild assortment of characters turn up to try and screw their way into the story, but none of them really have the infamous, iconistic stature that a porn could really play on. Yes, Harry Balls is cold-blooded (he drowns a girl he was anally ripping into in soup, and in a duel-meaning line, and one that is played on several times, states: "The soupís cold!"), but there is no ability to get into it when he has his penis bitten off by a dykish, masochistic female cop. You canít care too much whatís going on, on either side because that isnít what this is about. But as far as motivation for the sex, the reasoning and abrupt situations in which to showcase and exhibit the sex, is dull and ludicrous.
Maybe this type of reviewing would have been relevant if Siskel and Ebert had gone into reviewing pornographic movies, but as far as good sex, arousing sex, interesting sex, glamorous-looking sex, etc., this would have gotten "Two dicks down."
If you are curious to what you are able to see, the answer is everything. Limp, semi-limp, erect penises, ejaculations, vaginas, clitorises, frontal fucking, oral sex, anal fucking, doggie-style, finger fucking, orgies, masturbation Ėeverything. And none of it is engaging. In most cases, as both my date and I noted, it looked hellish and uncomfortable. These "actors" were being "fucked" raw. How they could walk afterwards is beyond us. And the way they treated themselves, or their bodyparts, moreover, was far worse. Slapping, shaking, and poking it all around. I would be in no way surprised if after this, they no longer functioned. But I guess that is what they get paid for.
As I hear with all pornos, the dialogue is flat, intended to be witty, but not. The acting is sour, from delivery of lines to facial expressions during climax. "The Disco Dolls in Hot Skin" could have been a lot grosser than it was, but I must admit that it was by far funnier than I ever could have expected. It was like a novelty to sit through. One of those things where you donít actually think that itís happening, but it serves as a good story or conversation just so long as you keep it away from the dinner table. The sex was inured and the bodyparts were all turgid and ugly, but I love the idea of 3-D porn. It could have been a promising enterprise.
As for the print of the movie itself, the stock was bad, scratchy and faded. Granted, that comes with time, but the jumpy, scattered editing, the bad sound, the skipping soundtrack, and the awful sound effects make this seem amateur, not to mention the fact they they would have been like that during its original run. There were, however, several (and by several I mean that I could count them on the fingers of my left hand alone) good-looking compositions and nice tracking/SteadiCam-esque shots.
All in all, if I were ever to get a hold of this one on DVD with the proper 3-D glasses, I wouldnít mind sitting through it again. Or at least certain parts. Experience it the way it was intended. But thatís only for "Disco Dolls," not "Lollipop Girls."Final Verdict: Technically, I would say that this is ungradable by movie standards, and since I don't have any porn standards, it's just average. I'm sure that they could be much better, but like with "Lollipop Girls," I know they can get much worse! C-.
link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=4679&reviewer=172
originally posted: 12/18/00 11:09:20