Faire l'amour sous l'influence du Zodiaque

another british sex comedy that fails to deliver, its only saving grace being topless model susie sylvie. the acting is atrocious and jokes just fall flat.

There were three reasons why I thought this sex comedy would be good. One, it's made in the UK and I find most of the British sex comedies of the 1970s very funny. Two, it stars Thick Wilson, a guy who made a brief appearance in the well-known COME PLAY WITH ME, directed by George Harrison Marks. He wasn't given anything funny to say in that film but something about this guy just made me laugh when I saw the scene he was in (and I don't mean the fact he's obese). Third, it was written by Tudor Gates, a good writer IMO and writer of one of the best sex comedies, INTIMATE GAMES, released in 1976.

Unfortunately I was disappointed after viewing SEX WITH THE STARS.

It lacks all the charm associated with the sex comedies of the 1970s. To be fair, EMMANUELLE IN SOHO (also being a 1980s film) is different from the 1970s efforts too. But the difference is that I remember the latter as being good when I saw it four years ago. I also want to point out here that I'm not a snob when it comes to films; I love many sex comedies from the 1970s such as the CONFESSIONS series, the ADVENTURES OF series, COME PLAY WITH ME, SPACED OUT, KEEP IT UP DOWNSTAIRS, CAN YOU KEEP IT UP FOR A WEEK? and so on. I even love the much-loathed and much-mocked ZETA ONE. But SEX WITH THE STARS is just plain dull, lacking the laughs, the energy and even the silliness that made those films all fun to watch.

No one watches a sex comedy expecting a great plot with twists and turns. So I can't argue about that point. A shy guy who writes an astrology column for a magazine is instructed by his boss to spice it up. What plays out is a series of vignettes where the guy has sex with girls born under different star signs. The fact that a shy bloke becomes a Lothario overnight is meant to be funny in itself, and indeed similar plots in films such as THE LOVE PILL, do work to produce some comical results. Sadly when watching this film, I was just bored. The lead, played by an actor who I've never heard of called Martin Burrows, had none of the charm or quirkiness required to play this sort of character. Watch David Pugh in THE LOVE PILL (if you can find it since the film has never had an official DVD release) or the guy with the glasses in SPACED OUT (can't remember his name off-hand) and see the difference between them and the dull guy in SEX WITH THE STARS. It makes all the difference in this type of film.

Thick Wilson enjoys himself playing the boss but he's not given any particularly funny lines. That was a big let-down for me because I thought he would be given quite a bit to do.

There are plenty of sex scenes to be found in the film. They are not erotic, which I'm not complaining about since they're not meant to be in these very British depictions of sex. But they are not funny either. Compare this to Robin Askwith's hilarious exploits in the CONFESSIONS films and you'll see the difference. Who could forget the scene with Robin Askwith and Sue Longhurst on the latter's kitchen floor for example?

Overall there really isn't much to say about this film. It was made right near the end of the British sex comedy boom. I wish I could agree with the two people who posted positive reviews. But I can't. This film is boring and a massive disappointment. I recommend it only to people who wish to see every British sex comedy ever made.

"Sex With the Stars" is the most tedious softcore flick I've ever seen. It's poorly shot, dimly acted, confusingly scripted, and dull, dull, dull.

The set-up is something to do with a "naive young man" who writes an astrology column being made to have sex with women of every star sign by a fat, cigar chomping American editor, who is played by an actor named Thick Wilson. Thick. Wilson. If only the person who had come up with the stage name for that actor had written this movie as well.

The movie then shows the young man meeting various different women while pointless, negligible narration has him reeling off details about their star sign while bedding them. There's nothing creative or interesting about any of these encounters, and they are filmed and staged so badly your attention is never where it should be.

There is no excitement, not even an attempt at any eroticism, and the movie becomes a wholly uninvolving procession of breasts and pubic hair. You see much more of the unphotogenic male lead than you wanted to: he is gross and ratty and his hair is already thinning out.

The only notable encounter is when the main guy saves a woman from drowning, carries her to the change rooms and strips off her clothes. It looks more like rape than anything else.

Apparently the UK writers don't like this movie. I do, and did when I saw it on cable some 20 years ago. I wish a good copy would turn up on DVD. Maybe it wouldn't be so great now, but, I suspect that it would. Maybe it was my single status at the time that made it better. Wishing that I had such a "tough" assignment as this guy. It was meant to be a fun picture, and I think it was. As it's been noted, there no silicone specials here, just natural talent. I think that that helps a lot. Too many of the American made movie of this ilk wind up with a bunch of plastic bimbos bouncing around thinking that their enhanced assets are the sexiest things in the world, NOT. Certainly not a Masterpiece Theater production, but, if you try to appreciate the movie what for it's meant to be, a sex romp/comedy, then you should be able to enjoy it. If not, then tune into Masterpiece Theater.

Typically witless sex comedy. Plot? A magazine astrologer is put under pressure by his vulgar American publisher to bed women of each different star sign in order to spice up his flagging column. Fill in the blanks.