An Exercise In Nonsense

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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 ****

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.

I recall seeing the ads for this movie when it first came out. At 14 there was no way I was going to get to see it, but having seen "American Graffiti" and as a result, being a big Richard Dreyfus fan, and just the composition of the poster, I HAD to see this. The rating had nothing to do with it (X at the time) though I found it intriguing that Richard Dreyfus might be in an "X" rated movie. I mean, come on, this is Curt we're talking about! He's a real guy, not some sick-o, right? That was my way of thinking at fourteen.Many years later, I finally got to see it after renting it at a video store. It was uncut so editing cannot be blamed.I was very, VERY disappointed. It was long and tedious and it became an effort to watch. Why it got an "X" and later an "NC-17" I never really figured out, but not being on the ratings board, who I am to second-guess? In a nutshell, I may watch this once more in my lifetime, but only in the hopes I can find some redeeming quality to it, or have my loathing of the movie validated.Additional Material: April 1, 2015. It's now a few years after I wrote that above review. Several months ago (maybe more-who cares?) I saw this available and watched it again. Let me rephrase that, I started to watch this again and did actually watch some of it. The rest I fast forwarded through. Once it was over I could give in to the desperate need to sleep. It was no better than I recalled. I will NEVER watch it again.

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.