Should you see it? No.
 |
| Finding a shot without nudity was tough. |
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds."
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Animal Instincts 3: The Seductress (1996)
How bad is it? It's soft-core porn with the "part 3" sequel curse.
Should you see it? No.
The one funny thing about this film is the name of the minor characters: Lolly Pop, Trick Willy and Stone Chill; there, I've saved you watching this. This doesn't have the same actress that starred in the first two parts (which I haven't seen), but I don't think that matters much. A female exhibitionist author lives with a record producer who pretends to be blind, but is a voyeur, setting up her sexcapades and then watching. The kinks get murderous and the "blind" guy kills, giving up his secret, which kind of throws a wrench in their relationship. No one expects great acting or storylines in this sort of film, but even the sex is boring.
Should you see it? No.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment