User reviews

I knew absolutely nothing about this film before viewing it recently. Richard Dreyfuss, is, of course a very famous actor, although this movie was near the beginning of his career. It is sexy, but the furor over X ratings back in the day was much overblown. (No pun intended) The MPAA made a big mistake using X as a rating, because the porn industry immediately invented XXX. NC-17 is a better idea, but it should maybe be used for things other than sex, such as graphic violence. It is weird you can't show much frontal nudity, even without graphic sex, but you can show dismemberment and disemboweling to teenagers all day long. Anyway, this was a nice, and quite odd character study, mainly in Dreyfuss' and Jessica Harper's roles. And the young Veronica Cartwright was interesting, too. A decent, and different film.

Five people talk and talk and talk in this raucous tale of old Hollywood shot in gaudy seventies colours staged in one room so you'd think you were watching a play but for the frequent rattle of the camera. Plenty of recherché names are dropped for the benefit of buffs and both ladies are a blast.

When this film was released sometime after the release of "Jaws" (although it was apparently shot before "Jaws"), the ad copy led me to believe (at age 12) that Richard Dreyfuss himself was the big Hollywood figure who had decided to do just pornos - brilliant pornos. I wasn't the only one, as I recall asking a Universal Studios tour guide if there would be a sequel to "Jaws" and which characters might return. When I asked about the Dreyfuss character, she awkwardly explained to me that Dreyfuss wasn't doing "these kinds of movies anymore." I saw "Inserts" later on Subscription TV when I was about 18. I don't know how edited it was, but I do recall nudity and some explicit descriptions of porn film-making. If you're looking for brilliant porno, or any kind of porno, look elsewhere. If you 1) like small talky art films, 2) are are fan of Richard Dreyfuss, 3) have an interest in the history of porn films (yes they existed before "Deep Throat") and are open to the other two items I mentioned, then you may find it of interest.

I think many reviewers have lost the point here. This is no excuse for porn, you guys. If you want porn, go get porn. And if you are put off by a film that entirely takes place in an apartment, stay away. But I think that this film is not one you get to see every day. Its special 'plot' and context could only create a unique film. So, its rare... where do we find it? I saw it on MGM, late at night...

This is a pretty sophisticated film on making porn. Dreyfuss is excellent as the alcoholic director. All in all, you are likely to love it if you like smart, dialog based films, and of course if you're not offended by some nudity and decadence. But what did you expect? This guys is making porn films in his apartment!

Provocative , a bit offensive , surprisingly shockin, yes, but unique and original as well. Note: this is no expoitation flick, even though some might view enjoy it as such...

When this film came out in the mid 1970's, I was more or less interested in its imagery of 1930's decadence. However, I'm not sure, but it probably would have repulsed me had I seen it in my early 20's. I actually thought that I would never get to see this little gem at all since it was so obscure. It was unavailable for years, but just recently I was able to get it on DVD. My more mature outlook on life some 30 years later made me appreciate the movie, though some of the sexually explicit scenes still made me wince. But after all was said and done, it more or less took the eroticism out of the concept of the pornography industry for me, and I was able to appreciate the black comedy of it all, highly sardonic, cynical, and sarcastic.

I began to consider each and every one of the actors in this flick to be pioneers in the independent cinema genre. None of them were afraid to take the risks involved by appearing in something like this, most of all Dreyfuss, considering "The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz" and others. Furthermore, they all became fairly successful afterward. I've seen other actors fall further into obscurity and then out of the picture completely after falling into the sexually explicit abyss.

This movie satisfied my curiosity for the decadence that I was always curious about. I also noticed that it had a "Sunset Boulevard" quality; it projected the same message, the cruelty of Hollywood, where dreams can be made and lost simultaneously. It also depicted misplaced priorities, addiction and its consequences and greed.

I was impressed that this was done simulating the three color process that was a forerunner to Technicolor. Set design was very well done; you only had one set, but there was a lot to look at in every corner, and they took you all over every corner. Costumes, well, there wasn't much there, save Boy Wonder's bathrobe and Rex, the Wonder Dog's infamous ascot.

It's a must see, but maybe not suggested for the faint of heart.

The same year that he starred in "Jaws", Richard Dreyfuss played a very different role in John Byrum's "Inserts". This focus on a director whose trouble adjusting to the arrival of talkies has resulted in him directing porno flicks is quite shocking. I guess that the point is that the dreams that people had of going to Hollywood and becoming stars - whether in front of or behind the camera - were in vain.

Jessica Harper's role as the moll interested in porno reminded me a bit of her aspiring singer in Brian DePalma's "Phantom of the Paradise". Bob Hoskins as the producer reminded me very much of his detective in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" (incidentally, both movies focus on old Hollywood and mention the construction of freeways). As for Veronica Cartwright, this movie combined with "The Birds" and "Alien" makes her one versatile actress.

All in all, this movie won't be for everyone, but I liked it.

This is a mediocre movie. The degree to which the movie works, at all, is because of Jessica Harper and Veronica Cartwright. The male actors (including Richard Dreyfuss) are almost completely disposable. Dreyfuss succeeded only in making his character very unlikeable. His portrayal of an alcoholic director of "skin flicks" is completely generic. The biggest problem with the movie is too much dialogue (mostly between the male characters). I don't think anyone ever watched an "adult movie" because they wanted to listen to men who never stop talking and shouting at each other. Now, for what does work in this movie. Jessica Harper and Veronica Cartwright both drove me crazy! Veronica shows "everything." Jessica, almost everything. They both deserved credit for their lack of inhibition. At one point, Jessica, like the male characters, also starts talking too much. But, she at least had her clothes off while she was talking! That makes all the difference in the world! Jessica also had a look of "classic" beauty. That would have been true even if she hadn't taken her clothes off, but I'm glad that she did! Another big mistake in the movie is that the Veronica Cartwright character is taken out much too soon. Veronica has always been a good actress. In this movie, she also lets "everything" show. I enjoyed watching her let everything show! They should have kept her around for the duration. Overall, the movie deserves points for being willing to accept the "X" rating. However, the great Richard Dreyfuss had nothing to do with what made the movie work. All the credit goes to Jessica and Veronica.

I saw this at an art cinema way back in the early 80s. Back then Richard Dreyfuss was a big star and it was a shock to see him in an X-rated film. This film was dull dull dull.

It takes place in one room where the characters talk endlessly about...something or other--I was so bored I can't remember. With the exception of Bob Hoskins and Dreyfuss everybody is nude at one time or another...but it's not even remotely erotic. The one sex scene is obviously being faked. The cast all try their hardest but they can't pull this across. Somehow this still carries an X rating! Don't be fooled--this is R rated material all the way

Boring and stupid--a must miss. Purportedly the British version runs a half hour longer!!!!

"A degenerate film with dignity" is the tag line for this comedy...and it is...a comedy. One thing many people might miss from this movie is the humor. At times it is bitter sweet and at times it is caustic. With characters like the mogul named "Big Mac", who wants to conquer the hamburger stand market, to the the porn actor called "Rex the Wonder Horse", who moonlights as an undertaker; what can you do but laugh.

It is very much a filmed stage play taking place in one large room with only a handful of actors. Yet you will hardly notice it. True to it's time frame (Hollywood at the dawn of sound), it's stands up to it's own time (1970's) and today's (2000's). Currently the porn industry does almost as much business as main stream films ("What Price Hollywood?"). In fact, Porn generates more money than Country Music. How many country music channels are there? How many porn?

You may never listen to the tune "Moonglow" in the same way again.

Watching it as a bitter sweet comedy, you cannot but enjoy this film. I have only seen the 117 min. version and not the shortened one. Be warned if only the 99 min. version is available.

It's difficult to find this movie. But if you get the chance, see it.

Actually quite daring for the time it was made, although now could almost get a PG-13 rating in some countries. Set in the early 1930's, Boy Wonder (Dreyfuss) now confines himself to his house, making silent porn movies that men will pay to see. That is how far he has descended in the movies. Dreyfuss spends his time in his bathrobe, swilling rotgut cognac. Big Mac (Hoskins) gives him a 6 picture deal to make and distribute. The first set up has Harlene (Cartwright) as a drug addled performer coming in for some shots with Rex the Wonder Dog. Some silly nonsense, until she ODs. Then comes Mac with his fiancee (Harper). She plays a part of real innocence, and has Boy Wonder wrapped around her finger, in a very delicious performance. That is perhaps the funniest part of the entire movie.

A washed up silent film director - Richard Dreyfuss - has fallen in to making quickie porn, but even this has its problems.

I think Richard Dreyfuss is a good actor, but also a lucky one. For a shortish guy who often carries a bit of a paunch - and whose hair is in full retreat - he seems to very popular with casting directors. While often cast in Average Joe roles he can never rise above the quality of the material.

Here he is given trash to work with and is left all at sea with it. A previous reviewer says he (Dreyfuss) wants to forget all about it - and I do too!

This looks like a stage play written by a dope smoking school dropout and filmed by his best mate. The subject (porno) seems chosen to try and bring a bit of box office to a "Winter of my Despair" style production.

There are two types of bad movie. Boring bad movies and inept bad movies. This is the closest I have ever seen to the two forms being present in one film. The whole production takes part in one room among people that have either given up on living or never had much interest in it in the first place.

(Did Dreyfuss see something of his own demons in the script?)

Unfunny lines about the mechanics of sex abound but it doesn't seems to want to be a black comedy - not even a failed one - it seems to be wanting to be taken seriously!

The only worthwhile thing is seeing the youngish Bob Hoskins (playing a gangster) taking his first few steps in Tinseltown.

Interesting only if you want to see the daddy of all bum-archers and maybe the worst "A film" of the 1970's. The writer/director - who we won't name and shame - later wrote Harry and Walter Go to New York to prove that he really was that bad, it wasn't just bad luck.

I am please others have found this little unknown film, to be the treasure it is....I thought I was the only one who likes this film.

True story I hear. So there I am at the salad bar at the Hollywood Sizzler, and who is next to me, but Richard Dreyfuss, hiding under a baseball cap.

I had to write him a note, before this rare opportunity slipped away. "Dear Mr. Dreyfuss, your performance in "Inserts" was worth an Oscar. You were brilliant. The whole cast was perfect. I loved the "Cuban Gothic" house. Thank you for taking such a professional risk. Bravo." Signed: An Admirer Paid a waitress $5 to take it over to him. He was with his wife and kids, with his back to the room. I then slipped out after he opened the folded note and read my words. Read what others who love film have written about this underground classic yet to be discovered? The whole cast went on to become big movie stars after making this little masterpiece. Bravo to the writer, cast and crew.

John Byrum wrote and directed this brave but ultimately unsuccessful character piece about stag filmmakers in 1930s Hollywood. There are five characters: Richard Dreyfuss is the burnt-out director working out of his home, Veronica Cartwright is his heroin-shooting starlet, Steven Davies is the stud, Bob Hoskins (trying hard to disguise his British accent) is a drug-supplying producer and Jessica Harper is a would-be actress. No one involved is able (or interested) in capturing the era; Byrum thinks dropping names and details will help his scenario finds its bearings, but just having his characters chat about Clark Gable isn't enough. Filmed in 'real time'--on one set like a stage play--there's no hope in breaking free from these spitting, clawing people, while Dreyfuss's anachronistic charm goes wasted. *1/2 from ****

This films plot centers around the making of, probably one of the first, porn movies, Sadly when it was released it was pre-arthouse cinemas and pre-video, so it was lumped in with second rate soft porn flic houses around soho London. Consequently it died a lonely death. Around this time Art house cinemas were starting to emerge in University towns which is how I caught it late night in Edinburgh. I was just knocked out by it's sharp drama wrapped in a comedy that launched incredibly incisive comment. Bob Hoskins character as the wannabee hood getting irate when he discovers that Richard Dreyfuss's character, the has-been director, has removed the camera from the tripod, in shear enthusiasm, as he filmed the sexual act. 'How is that going to look!' 'It's not going to look, it's going to be looked at!' retorts Richard Dreyfuss character. The economy of the lines are brilliant! Yes this is a one room drama, which is a tall order for cinema and few have conquered it but this film does brilliantly.

This is trash, pure and simple. Richard Dreyfuss, who, at the time, was just about the hottest property in the business, was also having well-documented personal problems of his own. Purportedly, that is why he decided to make this one set, cheap-jack, piece of crap. I waited decades to see this, being a bit too young when it was released and then not being able to find it when I finally WAS old enough. The tantalizing thought of it stuck with me for all those years. It had the reputation of being a train wreck, and I'm a collector of legitimate X-rated movies; the ones with big budgets, like, "The Killing Of Sister George" and "Midnight Cowboy". "Rosemary's Baby", missed the ratings system by about 4 months, or it, too, would have been certified X (Rosemary's a married woman whom Satan impregnates, in a scene which was trimmed shortly after release). When I finally found an ultra rare copy of the VHS tape, I was plenty excited to finally screen this notorious oddity. The result was very disappointing, even by my low expectations. "Inserts" is a lame, almost slapstick comedy fueled by substance abuse, yelling and a script so poorly written that even the sex can't redeem it. It's a stinker, for sure. But if you're into Dreyfuss (he really is a superb American talent) and you can track this down, you may want to spend some time with this weird little movie.

This odd little film is typical of Dreyfus's early work, like "Duddy Kravitz", with an intriguing performance in an odd role. Dreyfus plays The Boy Wonder, a once highly talented silent film director who, by the early 30s, has become a ghost story, directing stag films for a living. While no actual connection is made, I believe that The Boy Wonder was also a name for Fatty Arbuckle, who this could easily "be" -- years after the scandalous incident that ruined his career. This film also gets interesting performances from Jessica Harper ("My Favorite Year"), Veronica Cartwright, and, long before his toon experience, Bob Hoskins. It takes place entirely within a house, during a single morning, and could easily be done as a stage play. It would classify as a fairly common "Slice of Life" film, excepting for the rather strong nudity and sexual content. In fact it was a bit scandalous when it was released, as an "X" movie with a major star like Dreyfus in it.

The first half an hour or so of Inserts is as good as any film of this genre I've seen,it's got everything. As soon as Bob Hoskins arrives & through no fault of it's own, merely co-incidentally, the plot completely loses direction, the characters become thoroughly irritating (the best one had left for good by this point), the story reverts to being completely cliched (dirty old man style), and the rest is just a mix of bad language, drugs & alcohol. It may well have been realistic, but the final two thirds just did not make remotely interesting TV which is a shame because I'd still recommend the first half hour for very good fun. But if you want a turn on, get something more adult & less 70's (woman nude/man in sheepskin duffel coat).

3/10

Released after American Graffitti and before Jaws, a chance to catch Richard Dreyfuss in something that can be considered a legitimate art film, albeit with a bit of a bigger budget. Also amusing is Bob Hoskins in his role as Big Mac, making the same references to the upcoming onslaught of LA Freeways that served as a major plot device in his more well-known Eddie Valient role in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

Rather graphic for its time in the portrayal of full frontal female nudity, with a glimpse of full frontal male nudity (although we are spared the sight of Richard Dreyfuss and/or Bob Hoskins in the buff), the entire film takes place in one setting, with plenty of camera tracking movements instead of rapid cutting.

Jessica Harper as Cathy Cake is a wonderful character, and I am a bit surprised that her career was not more extensive. I wonder if this role hurt her marketability at all. Both Harper and Veronica Cartwright have plenty of scenes with casual nudity, and Dreyfuss is rarely seen without a whiskey bottle in hand.

Its now available on DVD. Check it out if you can.

As unique a "movie within a movie" film as you will ever see.

I first saw this film alone. The following night I took my friends, and that weekend I named my band after it. In Cambridge in 1977, this film became a small cult. The allusions to silent days were intriguing to a burgeoning film buff, with Clark Gable, that kid from Pathe, forever trying to get through the door, junkie reminiscences of Wally Reid, and many more nods and in-jokes that I would undoubtedly smile at now from knowledge, not ignorance.

The performances were, as I recall, uniformly good, with Dreyfus - whom I had only seen previously in American Graffiti - a revelation. This was also the first big screen role I can remember from Bob Hoskins, and after her small but memorable role in Love and Death, Jessica Harper brought just the right degree of irritating sexiness to Cathy Cake.

Annoyingly, despite the limitations of scale, and the occasional staginess, I don't think John Byrum has ever made a better film!

I have loved this film since first seeing it upon its limited UK release, then again on video and I find that watching it once more after several more years it is as enjoyable as ever. And this is despite the static one room setting and the presence of Bob Hoskins, who does well enough, but is not my favourite actor. Dreyfuss is tremendous, after Close Encounters and before Jaws and Jessica Harper excellent a year before Susperia - Argento just has to have seen her wide eyed stares, that crooked smile and brazen nudity and language. At the start we see a group watching a scene from a pornographic stag film, in b/w and then proceed to see the same film being made. It would have been nice to see more of the contrast between the 'making of' and the finished product but the writer/director is more interested in the sexual dynamics between the performers than the film itself and it is very much to his credit that he ever managed to get such a controversial film made - even if it was the 70s!

"Inserts" has long been one of my favorite films, a comic-tragic meditation on art, sex, self-delusion, acting, and the magic of Hollywood. Its complex themes are woven through the "shocking" theme of pornography in the silent era. This film has always gotten a raw deal from critics. One way that would be helping in approaching this film is to think of it as a filmed drama. I actually think it would work much better on the stage. In fact, for years I've been trying to locate the script. (Anyone got any ideas on that?) If you've only seen it once, and didn't like it, see it again and think of some of what I've said. You'll find it bold, rich, provocative, and unique.

One of the worst movies I have ever sat through. I was a student in Ann Arbor when this was released in theaters and it was shreaded by critics. It did get a lot of press because it was X-rated and starred Dreyfuss, who was apparently trying to replicate Brando doing an X-rated film a couple of years previous (Last Tango In Paris). It went to early cable (then called Pay-TV) and that's where I saw it.

It is an insufferable bore - a lot of talking with nothing really happening other than unsympathetic characters yacking on and on about stuff you could care less about. Brando got an undeserved Oscar nomination, but Dreyfuss didn't - and you can see why - his performance is obnoxious and insulting. At the time, I was trying to figure out whether he was just drunk or on some kind of drug. Veronica Carwright manages to rise above the awful script and give a good performance and it was interesting to see how this young teen from Hitchcock's The Birds grew up into a fine actress. Luckily, this film did not destroy her career, let alone that of Dreyfuss' - Jaws released that same year probably saved it for him. I can't understand some of the excellent reviews here. But, go ahead, sit through this if you can, although I suspect it will be hard to find - Dreyfuss should have had every copy of it destroyed.