Not enough T+A



This movie wasnt bad, it had some laughs and is real deal 70's low budget exploitation. Problem is, movies like these need extra T&A to make up for their overall suckage. This movie only had a few tiny bits of nudity. With the attractive female cast, this is a total waste. We at least shouldve seen Laceys curvy ass, Maggie had a nice bod too. Even the chubby chick 'Donut' should of had some nudity, she wasnt bad. And not 3 seconds of nudity, more like a few minutes at a time.
Another thing I find funny is how some of the teens look like they are in their 30's, like Maggie. The actress was 27-28 when this was shot.

reply

[deleted]

Not enough T+A

There's plenty of T&A elsewhere. And there is no 'suckage' to make up for here.

some of the teens look like they are in their 30's, like Maggie.

Very common practice. The entire cast of Saved by the Bell was well into their 40's.๐Ÿ˜

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

aznude.com has some spectacular nude scenes of Monica Gayle (Patch)Many with not a stitch on,not even an eyepatch!

reply

I really like the movie, but I would certainly have welcomed some more T&A as was typical of "exploitation" movies back then. Great looking cast, would have loved to see more of them.

Jack Hill has said in interviews they kept out most of the nudity (there are two very quick bits, maybe about 3 seconds total) because his intent was to make a PG film. But he didn't know that the MPAA policy at the time was that if a movie had drugs as an element, it was an automatic R rating. So he toned down the sex/nudity for nothing. And this probably accounted partly for its poor performance box office wise. People went in looking for an exploitation film, and didn't get their fix, so it didn't get good word of mouth.

It's certainly well regarded now, though.

reply

every movie ever made could use more T+A

reply

YOU AND WATCH MILO & OTIS IN VERY DIFFERENT WAYS.๐Ÿคจ

reply