Comedy, nudity, and the just plain bizarre collide in The First Nudie Musical. In hopes of making enough money to save his troubled movie studio, Harry Schecter (Stephen Nathan) and his plucky secretary, Rosie (Cindy Williams, pre-Laverne & Shirley), cook up the world's first pornographic musical. What follows is a loosely plotted collection of comedy bits and musical numbers (written by Rene Hall and codirector Bruce Kimmel) that, while not always successful, have a raw energy and charm that's hard to resist. The movie as a whole looks like it's been done by a new sketch comedy troupe with plenty of spirit and almost enough rehearsal. Yes, there is full-frontal nudity, and once you're done feeling bad for the first group of naked chorines performing in a roomful of fully clothed men, it all goes fine. Though many of the bits misfire, there is plenty of genuinely funny stuff, and even when there isn't, the movie is so weird that it's hard to stop watching. --Ali Davis
Spotlight customer reviews:
Customer Rating: Summary: last scene only please Comment: The final ten minutes of the movie has all the nudity. The rest is just a low budget poorly acted/directed film not worth watching. Companies like Girlie Video blow this way with leaps and bounds. Customer Rating: Summary: At last!! Comment: I first saw this movie on Showtime back in the late Seventies or early Eighties, and tried to find it on tape for years afterwards. Very funny, and I LOVED seeing Ron Howard (uncredited) and Cindy Williams in the same film pre-Happy Days/Laverne & Shirley. I have frequently tried to describe this film to my friends, and been frustrated. Even singing "Dancing Dildoes Are We" didn't convey the hilarity. Now I can show them!! You should see it too.
If you truly love the bizarre bellylaugh in film, run "The First Nudie Musical" as a double feature with "The Forbidden Zone" by Richard Elfman. You will laugh all night long. Customer Rating: Summary: Root, Root, Root For The Home Team Comment: After knowing about this film for over twenty years, I finally got a chance to see it. As a consumer reporter, the first thing the public needs to know is that Cindy Williams does not get naked in it. She's cute as a button, and carries the film in the female lead. You are kind of hoping she does disrobe in the final scene, but no, like Sarah Jessica Parker in "Sex in the City", she leaves this to the other ladies in the cast.
That disappointment aside, the film is very enjoyable to watch. Although filmed as the filming of a porno film, there is no actual pornography in it. There is, however, a very good amount of nudity sprinkled throughout, with attractive people in these roles, to keep that part of your interest going. For those wanting to view it from that angle, you won't be disappointed, and frankly, there is a lot more than your average R-rated film of today.
The reason for my title is that another reason to like the film is that you are rooting for the good guys to win. The plot is the same as thousands of films before it, in that something needs to be accomplished by a certain deadline, or something is going to be lost. So we have the usual problems that happen throughout the production, many of them predictable, but many of them humerous. The movie has it's share of one-dimensional stock characters, but the leads are done professionally, with a lot of wit and charm.
Also, the songs and chorerography are much higher than you would expect in a film like this. There are several songs that get you hooked on first listening. While predictable, you enjoy the movie for the people who are in it.
Customer Rating: Summary: Nudie Is As Nudie Does--A Look At Two Musical Camp Classics Comment: One of the greatest aspects of the DVD format is that it has brought underground cult films to a mass audience. No longer do you have to wonder about the oddball titles you've only heard about or that you've always wanted to see. These films might have been screened in large cities, but soon disappeared only to be whispered about nostalgically or forgotten completely. In my collection, I have two such films--musicals with rabidly supportive fan bases. And while I admire elements of both films, viewed with modern eyes--they are largely notable for their historic curiosity factor only.
"The First Nudie Musical," from 1975, is a slight and amusing romp about a filmmaker trying to save his studio by making a porno musical. A spoof of conventional "let's put on a show!" type movie musicals--the film's humor is sweeter than you might imagine from it's title. In fact, most of the supposed outrageousness is saved for the actual production numbers. With corny costumes, mildly titillating lyrics, and nice sight gags--these songs can be fun if inconsequential. Taken out of it's time period, however, there is nothing particularly shocking about this picture. There is plenty of non-sexual nudity, if you didn't guess that from the title. It is interesting to see Cindy Williams and Diana Canova before they went on to become sitcom stars. Everyone is game and the mood is light. You might chuckle a few times, but it's a low budget affair that's just isn't as funny as you would hope.
"The Apple," from 1980, has different aspirations--but elicits some of the same emotions. This is a rock opera spoof set to a sci-fi beat. With campy costumes, bad power ballads, and a classic struggle between good and evil--this film assaults your senses. It bludgeons you with it's very nature. When a young innocent singer is seduced by fame and fortune and the devilish Mr. Boogalow--it's up to her folksinging partner to save her soul and all of humanity. Designed to be outrageous, it was likely a spectacle when it premiered. Time, however, has dulled some of its glitter--and again, you might be wishing the film were a bit funnier than it actually is.
I think both of these musicals have intrinsic historical value. I love things that try to push the boundaries of mainstream film. For film lovers or curiosity seekers, I recommend you check out either or both films--if they sound interesting. My lower ratings are more for the casual viewer. As satire, spoof or camp--in their day--these films were noteworthy. To a modern audience, they might just seem bad. But if they were meant to be bad, does that make them good? That's a conundrum I leave at your feet. KGHarris, 10/06. Customer Rating: Summary: Great, funny movie Comment: In these times, when an American Taliban consisting of victim feminists, conservatives, fundamentalists, and just plain prudes are trying to force all women into chadors and burkas, it is refreshing that one can still obtain a video showing any nudity. Enjoy it while you can, because, like a boa constrictor tightening its coils every time its prey exhales, the Supreme Court has been putting the squeeze on nudity every since Nixon denounced the 1970 Presidential Commission's Report and appointed five right wing ideologues to the Court. That Report, based on an exhaustive study, concluded that there was no evidence that even the most sexually explicit materials caused any harm or even modified men's attitudes. It also concluded that government should get out of the censorship business. Instead, the Court abandoned both of its "bedrock" principles: to remain content neutral and to demand proof that expression represents a imminent and serious harm to a compelling government interest, that the remedy will reduce the harm, and that there is no readily available alternative with that would abridge 1st Amendment freedom less or no time to search for a less suppressive measure. It has returned to the "bad tendency" excuse used to jail "Commies" in the 1920s, adopted the ludicrously vague "compelling interest"of protecting the moral fabric of society, put all sexual expression just above obscenity on a sliding scale of value, okayed discrimination against certain kinds of sexual expression on the basis of content, allowed juries to make law as well as find guilt or innocence, upheld laws that invade that make it a crime to possess certain sexual materials, split live performances into "conduct" and "expression"components, then allowing suppression of the latter on grounds that the former is "associated with" certain "secondary effects"and requiring no proof of the association other than the sayso of local the usual suspect testimony of officials, fundamentalists, and other "concerned" groups, etc., etc., etc. Today, so afraid of sellers of sexual materials of any sort that stores like Publix put dark plastic covers over Cosmopolitan, Vogue, Elle, and other women's magazines. Sorry for the soapbox, but abridgment of the 1st Amendment is a serious matter. Yet, if a stage performance can be censored on the basis that it is part conduct, so can the press, for such aspects as data entry are acts the government can justify controlling on the basis that it causes crime as a "secondary effect" and the government has a "compelling interest" in coltrolling the crime. That Amendment says that government "will pass no law ... abriding freedom of speech." Ditto freedom of press. What is it about "no" that the Court, legislators, and people don't understand? The Court's blatent disregard for the Constitution may explain why polls consistently show that Americans have no respect for lawyers. At a Time when Americans are dying in a war against the Taliban and other usurpers of liberty, it is ironic that back home, our own Taliban is winning. This movie-video shows, however, that the flag is still there, torn, sullid, and shot full of holes, maybe, but still there.
