groggo
Joined Sep 2006
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews120
groggo's rating
This movie is entitled 'Naked Ambition,' which presumably refers to those who toil in the porn industry. But perhaps it's really about the naked ambition of director-photographer Michael Grecco, who, in 2006, was preparing a coffee-table book on the 'stars' of the industry.
Grecco seems to promote his book a lot in this alleged documentary. I say 'alleged' because it's decidedly one-sided; it almost lovingly embraces the many sides of porn. We don't hear many negative words about the industry and its blatantly sleazy side. I saw this as a glaring omission.
If you think porn is super-hot stuff and its galaxy of 'stars' the ultimate in sexiness, this flick is for you. For jaded others, like me, it's worth a glance if for no other reason than sheer curiosity. It scores highly on the 'curiosity' scale. But if you see porn as anti-sensual and anti-erotic, then you might not be so enthusiastic. If you think a documentary, by definition, should have depth and balance, be prepared for disappointment. That's MY one-sided view.
The vacuousness of these female 'stars,' their shallowness, their silicone/collagen-filled bodies, their insincerity, are things to behold. Most of the footage is taken at the Adult Video Awards in Las Vegas, an orgiastic gathering of wacko marketers, weirdos, groupies and freaks. One guy proudly displays a humongous tattoo of his favorite porn star. It fills the complete side of his body. He endured 13 hours of needles and paid $6,000 for the privilege. I found this profoundly sad.
And, of course, no flick about porn is complete without the so-called 'godfather' of the industry, Ron Jeremy, who makes an inevitable visit for Grecco's camera. Jeremy was about 56 years old when this film was made. He's fat, he's going bald, and he looks like a lecherous grandfather, not a godfather. He should be reclining somewhere on a beach. Instead, he's still getting it up for porn flicks. Again, I found this profoundly sad.
I hope Grecco made money from his coffee table book. He certainly promoted it enough in this non-documentary.
Grecco seems to promote his book a lot in this alleged documentary. I say 'alleged' because it's decidedly one-sided; it almost lovingly embraces the many sides of porn. We don't hear many negative words about the industry and its blatantly sleazy side. I saw this as a glaring omission.
If you think porn is super-hot stuff and its galaxy of 'stars' the ultimate in sexiness, this flick is for you. For jaded others, like me, it's worth a glance if for no other reason than sheer curiosity. It scores highly on the 'curiosity' scale. But if you see porn as anti-sensual and anti-erotic, then you might not be so enthusiastic. If you think a documentary, by definition, should have depth and balance, be prepared for disappointment. That's MY one-sided view.
The vacuousness of these female 'stars,' their shallowness, their silicone/collagen-filled bodies, their insincerity, are things to behold. Most of the footage is taken at the Adult Video Awards in Las Vegas, an orgiastic gathering of wacko marketers, weirdos, groupies and freaks. One guy proudly displays a humongous tattoo of his favorite porn star. It fills the complete side of his body. He endured 13 hours of needles and paid $6,000 for the privilege. I found this profoundly sad.
And, of course, no flick about porn is complete without the so-called 'godfather' of the industry, Ron Jeremy, who makes an inevitable visit for Grecco's camera. Jeremy was about 56 years old when this film was made. He's fat, he's going bald, and he looks like a lecherous grandfather, not a godfather. He should be reclining somewhere on a beach. Instead, he's still getting it up for porn flicks. Again, I found this profoundly sad.
I hope Grecco made money from his coffee table book. He certainly promoted it enough in this non-documentary.
This 148-minute (far too long) film is so confusing that you're not sure at times if you're watching a film in 'real' time or watching flashbacks on flashbacks.
The movie is based on two real characters -- actors Luise Ferada (Monica Bellucci) and bombastic Osvaldo Valenti (Luca Zingaretta) -- who were big movie stars in fascist Italy before and during the Second World War. Despite the film's length, their motivations and personalities are never really explored. We know that they're cocaine users and so consumed with themselves that they are basically indifferent to the fascism that ultimately does them in.
This is a film that should be alive with the frenetic tempo and intrigue of the times, but it's instead oddly static. It is difficult to imagine at times that a war is going on all around the many characters who weave in and out of the frames -- so many in fact that the viewer starts losing track of who is a fascist, who is a resistance fighter (partisan) or who, like the lead characters, is basically a person who doesn't much care one way or the other.
This film should have been far more interesting, engrossing and exciting, but it settles instead for a confusing love affair and a strange, leisurely pacing that undermines the film throughout. The director, Marco Giordana, must take responsibility for this.
The movie is based on two real characters -- actors Luise Ferada (Monica Bellucci) and bombastic Osvaldo Valenti (Luca Zingaretta) -- who were big movie stars in fascist Italy before and during the Second World War. Despite the film's length, their motivations and personalities are never really explored. We know that they're cocaine users and so consumed with themselves that they are basically indifferent to the fascism that ultimately does them in.
This is a film that should be alive with the frenetic tempo and intrigue of the times, but it's instead oddly static. It is difficult to imagine at times that a war is going on all around the many characters who weave in and out of the frames -- so many in fact that the viewer starts losing track of who is a fascist, who is a resistance fighter (partisan) or who, like the lead characters, is basically a person who doesn't much care one way or the other.
This film should have been far more interesting, engrossing and exciting, but it settles instead for a confusing love affair and a strange, leisurely pacing that undermines the film throughout. The director, Marco Giordana, must take responsibility for this.
If you've ever wondered what a porn flick would be like if you took out the porn, here's your answer.
'Horat' has no plot, no point and no laughs, and why should it? I had no idea when I rented the DVD that it was originally a hard-core porno that was 'cleaned up' for a soft-core audience. What results is an embarrassingly tedious flick with absolutely no redeeming values. It uses the dumb Eastern European prototype (Horat/Borat) as an attempt to elicit giggles. Instead, it just reinforces how absolutely low on the intelligence scale humanity can go. Our evolution as a species has taken another hit with this piece of garbage.
This 'movie,' for lack of a better word, is a Borat rip-off in name only. Borat, for all its silliness, at least had a plot (AND a point), and, yes, even some laughs.
The early IMDb rating (based on 10 votes) for Horat is 9.1, a ludicrously inflated figure that was undoubtedly aided and abetted by votes from people connected to the flick, from producers to actors to crew. IMDb ratings are often notoriously unreliable because of this rampant padding by 'voters' who are serving their own interests.
There is something desperately wrong with our society when an appalling flick like this can be financed and distributed to general audiences while genuine, talented filmmakers can't get enough funding for even the lowest of low-budget films. (Note: I am not involved in film-making in any way, nor do I even KNOW any filmmakers.)
If you like looking at people engaging in endless, ridiculously phony soft-core sex, this sorry excuse for a 'movie' is for you. For those with a mental age above, say, 14, save your time.
'Horat' has no plot, no point and no laughs, and why should it? I had no idea when I rented the DVD that it was originally a hard-core porno that was 'cleaned up' for a soft-core audience. What results is an embarrassingly tedious flick with absolutely no redeeming values. It uses the dumb Eastern European prototype (Horat/Borat) as an attempt to elicit giggles. Instead, it just reinforces how absolutely low on the intelligence scale humanity can go. Our evolution as a species has taken another hit with this piece of garbage.
This 'movie,' for lack of a better word, is a Borat rip-off in name only. Borat, for all its silliness, at least had a plot (AND a point), and, yes, even some laughs.
The early IMDb rating (based on 10 votes) for Horat is 9.1, a ludicrously inflated figure that was undoubtedly aided and abetted by votes from people connected to the flick, from producers to actors to crew. IMDb ratings are often notoriously unreliable because of this rampant padding by 'voters' who are serving their own interests.
There is something desperately wrong with our society when an appalling flick like this can be financed and distributed to general audiences while genuine, talented filmmakers can't get enough funding for even the lowest of low-budget films. (Note: I am not involved in film-making in any way, nor do I even KNOW any filmmakers.)
If you like looking at people engaging in endless, ridiculously phony soft-core sex, this sorry excuse for a 'movie' is for you. For those with a mental age above, say, 14, save your time.