I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

How sad is this?

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

I see some people bashing this film and that troubles me. As a movie, there are many much worse than this one. As an opportunity to see Kathy Ireland walking and talking instead of in the pages of SI is certainly worth the effort of watching it. One of the most gorgeous and intelligent women on the planet. So she decides to accept an offer to do a bad movie. Did she get paid? I'm guessing yes.Now she is a multi-billionaire business woman with he lines of products that all started with a line of socks. Will she ever act again? I don't know, but she certainly doesn't have to to pay the bills. I was glad to stumble across this movie on cable. And let's not forget that the Latino tough guy was also used for the same type of role in "Wild Things". LOL And a personal note to the person who wrote about the different decades. I'm old enough to know that the late 60's through the mid 80's was the best of all times period for movies and music. What does how or what clothes people wore in this or any movie have anything to do with anything except for snobs who live their small minded lives based on the current fashion magazines?? If you think the current decade is the best thing going, maybe you should get your head examined. At least back in those days the movie industry seemed to be able to come up with original ideas of their own instead of reworking Japanese horror and doing poor remakes of classic TV shows, video games, and movies.

Yes, it was bad, as bad as movies can usually get. The acting was tolerable, and there really wasn't much story as con artists try to con the marks and each other. The ending was corny and poorly written.But the whole point was to get another chance to see the lovely Audie England (Delta of Venus, Free Enterprise), and we did get to see her. Wow! I am so glad she decided to appear on this side of the camera instead of becoming a cinematographer.We get a bonus as this film also included the gorgeous Kathy Ireland, the former Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition model. We just have to imagine what lies beneath with Ireland as she has one of those Sandra Bullock no-nudity clauses in her contracts. But, it was fun imagining.

Please don't view this film! This is a terrible film, Kathy Ireland what are you doing? please don't waist your time with this. If they stuck to their original idea with Pamela Anderson in the lead role it would of still been as bad.I think that Pammy avoided this film due to its terrible script and not the nude scenes as Kathy Ireland has none in it anyway. Audie England supporting role is also waisted as she has much more talent to be in a film this bad. Audie should be auditioning for Meg Ryan type parts which suit her.stay away from movies which sucks and make you look worse.

Even if you rent this movie for the wrong reasons (as I did) you'll be disappointed. The beautiful Kathy Ireland is completely un-erotic. The sex scenes are perfunctory and if strip clubs were as boring as the one in this movie they would all have closed a long time ago. Obviously a movie that had problems. It's the first time I've seen a credit for "Director of Re-shooting". The only good point. It is short. 81 minutes.