Own the rights?
8 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :- In some ways, even better than the first film., 7 July 2007 Author: ajji-2 from Lahore, Pakistan
I was led to believe that this sequel to Fantasm was inferior, but i was pleasantly surprised to see that it is better than the first film in many ways. The sex scenes are a lot more erotic in this film, and there is less 'forced' comedy this time around (though there are still humorous bits, especially Serena's segment). And once again there is a swimming pool scene with John Holmes that borders on hardcore, while the girl-girl scene with Uschi is far too mild even for soft-core. The highlight of the film has to be the 'gym massage', which is by far the most arousing vignette of the lot.Gone is the goofy professor that narrated & hosted the first film, replaced by a middle-aged guy and a young blonde reading aloud 'dear Collette' letters and answering them. Remarkably, the girl looks a lot like the currently active porn- star Jeanie Rivers. Overall, this is decent soft-core erotica.
5 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- Not Much to Recommend Here, 20 December 2006 Author: lazarillo
If you ever wanted to see a bunch of talent-free 70's porno actors and actresses in non-porno (OK, make that softcore porno) roles, well here's your chance. If you ever wanted to see a movie with more male frontal nudity than female, it's your lucky day. And if you haven't stopped reading yet,it's an Australian movie to boot (despite the plethora of American porn "actors"). This is actually the Australian portmanteau sequel to an equally stupid Australian portmanteau movie "Fantasm". The only real difference is that the wrap-around story this time involves two sex advice columnists pouring over various letters (the male Australian actor looks just like, but isn't, John Vernon, and the female Australian actress never takes off her clothes even though she is far more attractive than most of the American porno types that do). The rest of the movie, like "Fantasm", is a bunch of vignettes that are not funny, not entertaining, and fall uncomfortably between softcore and hardcore porn (with lots of flaccid male frontal nudity).There isn't a lot to recommend in this movie I'm afraid. If you actually have a fondness for 70's porn and porn stars and want to see people like Bill Margold in non-porno action, you might enjoy it. The mammoth-mammaried Uschi Digardt does appear again for more sapphic frolicking, but she was in a lot better movies than this. Ditto with Cheryl "Rainbeaux" Smith who appears in a very politically incorrect vignette about a prudish girl who gets raped by a slob in a van at the drive-in and ends up enjoying it. Sad to say her brief appearance is the highlight of the movie and it alone makes this a slight improvement over "Fantasm". But if you're not a Smith or Digart fan, this isn't much more than a curio from the long-gone polyester decade.
4 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- An pitiful attempt to cash-in on the first, 30 September 2005 Author: movieman_kev from United States
Harry, an old school cranky newspaper reporter helps a new girl reporter answer some sex letters for the "Dear Collete" advice column that she's taking over from him. She reads letters involving sex in the library, school locker room, drive-in rape, an elevator threesome lesbian action in the barn, and sex in church among others. This sequel to "Fantasm" lacks the charisma, originality, and fun of the first one. It's a dreary mess to sit through and it was very obvious that it was made simply to cash-in on the first movie and nothing more.My Grade: D- DVD Extras: Commentary with Producer Antony Ginnane; and Theatrical Trailer
Add another comment
