Flesh Gordon Meets the Cosmic Cheerleaders

Because I liked the special effects and stop-motion animation from the first film, I decided to check out the sequel. It contains stop-motion animation and special effects too but they pale beside the work done in the original. Several of the people who worked on the original were later Academy Award winners (such as Rick Baker and Dennis Muren) but the effects in this one are not as good and are few and far between. As far as porno films go, this one has less nudity in it than the original had. It's mostly crude toilet humor and bad acting. Dialogue scenes go one forever and the sound mix is so bad you can't understand what anyone is saying most of the time but since nothing said pertains to the plot (if there is one) then it doesn't matter. It starts out trying to create a 1930s atmosphere which is good but after that, it's a bunch of half naked people standing around talking. The first film is faster paced and better made and looks like STAR WARS compared to this.

A sequel that no one wanted as it seems. And that can be very, very annoying. But I can see that some might like the completely OTT approach to the movie. There are so many sexual sight gags in it, that you'll either shake your head in disbelieve or won't be able to stop laughing. If a movie like ... "Movie 43" can produce laughs (arguably with better actors, at least name wise), than why should this be treated differently/worse? So it changed the lead actor from part 1, but the time difference between movies made this inevitable.

To call this silly would be an understatement. The acting, if you can call it that, is bad at best, the hair and make-up feels like it's from another dimension (which almost makes it work). But there are still fans for that sort of thing out there. And while this wasn't planned as porn, it does have some nudity in it as well.

This is so audacious it deserves some attention. Sure it is juvenile and cheesy. The problem of course is it somehow conflates excrement and sex, both in the story and the manner of telling the story. That ruins it: it is no "Barbarella."

But it has a framing worthy of "Orgazmo." It starts by being a cheap movie that the characters step out of. And then seamlessly they step back into it. What starts out as an aversion to boogers turns into a society of turds, a field of farts, an attack dick, a collection of pseudoscience revolving around erectile dysfunction (though the term didn't exist then) and submission rays. No mention of gleet.

That movie within a movie thing is pretty cool, especially when what you see is stupid. It gives an excuse, after all, you are not seeing the real movie, but the cheesy movie within. Worked great for an even cheesier production: "Robot Monster."

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I saw the movie at a Midnight Show.what a mistake that was.this is so unfunny.This movie was made about 15 years too late.The movie is cheap tacky but so badly done.it has nothing to redeem it.comedys are rarely this boring.1 out of 10

Possessing a sense of humor that can be generously described as "infantile", performances so frantic they may give you a headache, and special effects that are mostly obvious miniatures, this abomination plumbs the depths of tastelessness and stupidity like few films you'll ever see. So it has a certain curiosity value. But neither that, nor the large amount of T&A, are justifiable excuses for any rating higher than....0.5 out of 4 stars.