Bubbles Galore

I wonder why the Showcase Channel continues to air this "movie" occasionally. I guess they want to show what a XX movie is like as opposed to a X or XXX film. Personally, I consider it the first XX film ever made, and boy is it awful. It wouldn't even qualify as a cult film.

If it's a feminist film, it portrays women in a horrible manner (as well as men). If it portrays God as both man and woman (check what's under the arms...ewww), it fails miserably. If it's supposed to be porn, again it fails.

The plot, about a porno being filmed, and the ridiculous subplots involving the "stars" of the film, is just plain silly. Shot like a Russ Meyer film with quick edits, and given a "Natural Born Killers" style verite look; it fails to even amaze or anger. All we get to see are fake penises, sex toys, horrible choreographed fight scenes, lame sex scenes, awful dialogue and acting, and women who have the worst tanlines I've ever seen (tops and bottoms, or both). I wonder why these "exhibitionists" who make these kinds of films need to wear full bathing suits when getting a tan? Do we need to see these ladies in thongs when it clearly shows that they wear normal bathing suit bottoms at the tanning salon? Can't they at least be like France's women, who believe that a full tan is that more sexier? Oh, well...

The bottom line is that this movie is one of the worst ever made. Nina Hartley obviously spends every dime at the plastic surgeon and can't act to save her life, and the rest look like people just off the street. Fortunately, the government of Canada will make sure nothing like this hopefully gets produced again.

This is without a doubt, one of the most tackiest films I've seen. It makes "Clerks" and similiar amateur films look as if they were directed by David Lean! And the worst part of it is that we Canadian tax-payers shelled out 125000 dollars for it. The film claims to be a feminist sex fantasy, detailing the issues surrounding pornography and women's place in it. In actuality, it is a hardcore porno film, with numerous bad actors, and many real, as opposed to simulated, sex scenes. The "message" seems to be window-dressing on such a non-story. The filmmaking itself is humurously inept, as it seems to be shot by somebody who just purchased a cheap home-video camera, and is just learning how to use it. At least Ed Wood had the good sense to use black-and-white film, which is about all that could make this film better. When the controversy broke over the fact taxpayers money was used to fund this film, I assumed the fuss was the mere fact the film dealt with the sex trade and pornography. I actually believed it was a serious film, knowing "of course, government art agencies wouldn't knowingly fund a xxx-film." Showcase cashed in on the fuss by airing it, uncut, on their late-night slot a few days ago, and the truth.... the film was a porno, after all. Apparently, the funders loved the premise so much they didn't bother to check on the final product. I bet they're embarrassed. The idea of a movie revolving around a female porn star is a great one. It would be a chance to study what sort of person she is, etc. But this movie lost that chance. And as a MOVIE, it fails big time.

For the first time in my life, I will give a movie less than one star! 1/2*

Bubbles Galore succeeds in recreating the 'amateur hour' atmosphere of many XXX-rated videos. But that's not saying much -- I've seen $1.98 porno vids with better production values, editing and acting than this piece of tripe. This film was made with the help of a Canadian government grant -- and the resulting controversy over Bubbles Galore means future filmmakers will probably have trouble getting funding in the future. Casting real-life porn star Nina Hartley in the lead, as well as porn star-turned-performance artist Annie Sprinkle as 'God' were good moves, but ultimately can't save this debacle. If Edward D. Wood, Jr. were still alive, he might have been able to do something worthwhile with this ... in his unique way.

I love this country! Where else would various government agencies fund a raincoater.

To be fair, this is Nina Hartley's best work to date(if one overlooks her perfomance in Boogie Nights).

Women are making strives in the Adult film industry and are beginning to stretch their wings in this genre.

This is a strange film, a little violent and hard to follow at times, but slightly better than a Three's Company rerun.

Interestingly enough, Nina Robert's hasn't seen the film yet, and this film will never be realeased in the U.S.

This movie does have a fair bit of Canadian Content, enough I suppose to justify the grants,

This time Canada plays Canada for a change.

This is a film that has to be seen to be believed. Not only is it rather explicit at times, but the acting is poor, the story is practically incoherent, and the film is pretty much a mess. But even with all of these huge flaws, I almost liked this film. I mean, it is SO bad, that it is somewhat enjoyable, in a bizarre sort of way. If not for the thoroughly unappealing scenes with Annie Sprinkle, I might have even given this bomb a passing grade, as weird as it may sound. This is definitely not a film for most people, and it will probably offend almost everyone, but if you like seeing BAD movies, or if you like lots of female flesh, then perhaps this could be worth your time.