Naked Souls (1996) User Reviews

Naked Desperation

[ozq · 2/10 · 31 July 2005]

This littler sucker came on late night TV and I ended up watching, almost like a train wreck. You keep watching, totally amazed these good actors (Dean Stockwell, David Warner & the cute Brian Krause) are stuck in this badly concepted movie. The script sucks, and Pamela Anderson is there purely for sex - both with Krause (one rather vivid scene in particular - not necessary to plot) and fondling other women in the name of fine art.

Don't trust the physics - very shaky and zero credibility. There's little the actors or director could do with such a sucky script. Add a few bad actors in with a few decent ones - and you can really tell the difference. The best scene in my opinion is between Krause and Stockwell as Krause is leaving the university, but the rest is really struggling. While maybe not Z-grade, it's awfully close. Might be so bad its funny for some.

For very late night TV it's perfect. To buy or rent, don't waste your money unless you're a fan of any of the actors mentioned above.

Watchable-But Just Barely

[Uriah43 · 4/10 · 15 November 2013]

"Edward" (Brian Krause) is a scientist who is experimenting with capturing memories from dead people. His girlfriend, "Britt" (Pamela Anderson) is an artist. Lately, Edward hasn't spent much time with Britt and this is putting a huge strain on their relationship. Likewise, the fact that Edward has just been denied a grant to continue his research is adding to his stress levels. All of a sudden a famous scientist named "Everett Longstreet" (David Warner) comes along and offers Edward his entire estate. But there is a catch. Anyway, rather than disclose any of the mysteries of this film I will just say that I suppose it is watchable--but just barely. Obviously, the main attraction in this movie is Pamela Anderson and her presence certainly helped. Additionally, David Warner and Dean Stockwell (as "Duncan") also performed adequately. But the main problem with this film was the clumsy dialogue which impacted everyone's performance to a degree but most notably that of Brian Krause. In short, other than Pamela Anderson there really isn't anything remarkable about this film and I rate it as slightly below average.

Mediocre

[Tito-8 · 4/10 · 3 October 1999]

Unless you can never get enough Pam Anderson, this film is sure to disappoint. The story is okay, and the cast does a decent enough job, but I was never able to get interested in this picture. The ending is fairly obvious from the start, and therefore much of the movie is just seeing exactly what roadblocks get in the way before all the pieces fall into place. Ho-hum.

Pamela makes this sci-fi thriller watchable

[Red-Barracuda · 5/10 · 8 January 2014]

An elderly, crippled scientist offers funding to a struggling experimenter who is working on a new thought-transferral procedure. He tricks the younger guy by transferring his soul between their bodies. What complicates matters is that the soul of a dead serial killer gets mixed in creating dangerous impulses.

This sci-fi thriller is one of an easily identifiable type of movie whose only real selling point is its nudity. I say easily identifiable because the cover imagery in these films always plays up the presence of the sexy girl who they have hired for the eye candy. In this instance it's the very beautiful Pamela Anderson who the film-makers had at their disposal. She is by a massive distance, the only thing of any merit in this film. Despite what most of us hope for, she isn't naked very often but when she is she is delectable. Actually, come to think of it, even when she is fully clothed she is pretty delectable here too. She may be eye candy but she is premier division eye candy. In this film she plays a performance artist who likes to pour paint onto the bodies of semi-naked girls. As good as this idea is it isn't unfortunately explored in quite enough detail for my liking!

The problem with the movie, however, is that the plot-line kind of gets in the way a bit too much. It's not that a soft-core film can never successfully blend a narrative in with erotic moments – another Anderson vehicle Snapdragon does this fairly well. The main problem here is that despite being top-billed, this film mainly neglects her, choosing instead to focus on the two scientists in their none-too interesting experiments. And once the soul transferral experiment happens, the whole serial killer part of the story is very badly mishandled - it never plays up even remotely closely to its thrilling possibilities. Ultimately, this is a movie that sets up an interesting enough, if unoriginal set of ideas but doesn't deliver much on its early promise. It stars David Warner in the role as the elder scientist and Dean Stockwell in a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo. But at the end of the day, the only sane reason to watch this is to see the very lovely Ms Anderson.

Naked Pamela

[gridoon · 5/10 · 28 June 2006]

Taken as a sci-fi thriller, "Naked Souls" lies somewhere between "mediocre" and "not bad". The ideas (mind-switching, memory transfer, etc) are intriguing, even if they have been used in many other films (the French thriller "La Machine", with Depardieu, is one that comes to mind), but this film goes nowhere with them. However, Pamela Anderson looks breathtakingly gorgeous here (I don't remember ever seeing her look better), and she has one particularly sensual sex scene (damn was her partner a lucky guy!). The filmmakers must have liked that scene too, because they repeat it in the last few minutes....and it's actually better the second time because it's not intercut (like it is the first time) with David Warner's reactions. No disrespect to Warner, who is a fine actor, but he kind of kills the mood in this instance, if you know what I mean....(**)

Mildly erotic and thrilling.

[DJ FILMS · 5/10 · 9 April 2002]

Naked Souls was described on it's cover as an explicitly erotic thriller, something it is definetly not. It's just the kind of thriller that's made to cash in on Pamela's assets and the kind of wasteful slop you expect to run really late on Monday night television. Still, it does dabble in some really interesting themes and has some surprising plot twists which lift it above the usual B-grade standard. The performances by what could be called a respectable B-grade cast aren't too bad. Krause captures his character quite well, and Dean Stockwell and Pamela Anderson aren't bad in their underused (yes Pamela is underused AGAIN!) supporting roles. Definately NOT an exceptional piece of work, but a vaguely entertaining piece of dismal thriller all the same.

For both reasons,don't waste your time.

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 15 September 2001]

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs ................Think how many reviews this film has received complaining about the bad acting and awful story.Well,I'd actually rented it expecting,and,dare I say it,actually vaguely hoping for these things.I just wanted to be titillated by the gorgeous Pamela Anderson Lee engaging in frequent sexual encounters.After all,the back sleeve did promise SEX/NUDITY to be frequent and strong.It was this or face the shame of renting a porno video.So I wanted to see Pamela basically screwing anything that moves.WHAT?This sucked.There were about two sexually explicit scenes in the whole film.And they weren't even kinky and naughty like I hoped ,they were more sensuous and intimate.Needless to say,the two things mentioned above were as bad as expected.So instead of someone knocking her door to be greeted with a forward yank and ''come here big boy'',you get some heavily pretentious ''acting'' from Pammy.Even Barb Wire was a better porno video than this.One to completely avoid,and not risk losing your credit over.*

« Naked bodies » would be a more honest title (DVD)

[leplatypus · 1/10 · 9 October 2010]

Indeed, it took less than 6 minutes for Pam to get nude. Then, she did it again in a bed and all along the movie, she kept wearing very revealing clothes (except when she got out of bed!).

Beyond, all the female characters get also nude: the wife of the mad scientist, the victims of the serial killers, the model for Pam's art. Well, i admit that both Pam and Seana are really stunning but all this gratuitous nudity is unfortunate (= it adds nothing to the story).

However, it's the only thing that matters here because all the rest is crap:

* Davis Warner becomes albinos (his face is painted white to underline that his character is old and don't see the daylight often!)

* I believe in ghosts, UFOs, Nessy, Bigfoot but the sharing of memories and souls by smoke is utterly stupid!

* for a short movie, you kept seeing the same sequences over and over: thus, its runtime isn't 80 minutes but rather 70 or less!

But, don't count on me to slap Pam's acting because we need all sorts of acting for all sorts of movies and emotions. I think that Pam is fine because she offers a kind, down to earth personality. Thus, we can share and care for her and it's the basic tool for any artist. Unfortunately, having been labeled the blonde sex-symbol of the 90s, she is despised at first sight and that's not a fair judgment.

In conclusion, the only memories of this movie would be those of Pam (and Seana too.)

Oh God...

[filmbuff-lk · 1/10 · 30 August 2000]

What can I say about this awful movie ? Bad actors, bad plot, bad scenes. That would do it.

The only reason you should see this movie is for Pamela Anderson, and I'm not saying it because of her "talents" (if I can call it like that) as an actress, but yes because of her... Let's say... Nice "body performances". That all. Don't expect anything else from this movie. The whole plot is confusing and unrealistic, besides, it's way to slow and most of the time, boring, which by the way, translates the entire meaning of this flick, it's a really, REALLY boring movie (unless you like to see tons of naked babes, which was the only reason it made me from turning off the TV).

Rating: 1,5 out of 10 (I would give it a 1, but I will give it a bonus for it's naked babes...)

Impossible doesn't exist

[vincentga · 1/10 · 3 December 2004]

If I think now the impossible doesn't exist it's cause for me make a so boring movie like that was impossible. Even in my best dream.

But the reality proof I'm wrong since I watch this movie.

I give this movie 1/10. And like many other boring movie the "1" is just for technical (image, sound, etc.)

Actor/actress can't be good in a so bad movie. Again I'm so surprised some guys find money to "create" a so bad movie.

Sorry Pam but even your breast can't save this movie.

If you received this movie in gift, think it's a bad joke!

Naked Souls

[jboothmillard · 5/10 · 13 September 2005]

Unfortunately I do not remember finishing this film for some reason, but it's another one of those thriller or drama like films that I basically only wanted to see for the chance of seeing good sex and nudity. The thing I most wanted to see when I heard about this film was obviously the chance that Baywatch's Pamela Anderson may show us her wonderful breasts. I didn't really pay much attention to the story, but I think the story is a Professor Everett Longstreet (The Omen's David Warner) has placed some kind of sensors into the stupid main man's body, so that he could feel what he feels, e.g. Pamela's body. Good, as far as I can remember!

Pam is the ONLY reason to see this film

[christopheredwards-652-241390 · 8/10 · 8 July 2023]

The movie does not qualify as a film. The acting is poor, the script is horrible, and the camera man was using an illicit substance.

But........Pam is at her best. This is back when Pam was sexy, stacked, and all the body parts were firm. Without Pam, there would be no reason to ever see this movie. Her hair, eyes, lips, nips, and hips are a reason to see this movie twice. From the moment she appears in a scene, which is in the first ten minutes of the film, any one with a pulse can't wait for her next scene. She BUST onto the screen as a hot luscious and voluptuous blonde bombshell, and she never cools off. Beyond that,I cant tell you much about this train wreck of a film, but 7 of the 8 points I gave to this film was for Pamela Anderson.

Starring Pamela Anderson - so that's at least two good reasons to watch this!

[Stevieboy666 · 6/10 · 24 February 2024]

Nineties golden girl Pamela Anderson plays an artist called Britt, her scientist boyfriend Edward (Brian Krause, he's one very lucky chap!) seems more interested in doing illicit experiments on cadavers than cuddling up with her (he must be mad!). He taps into the memory of dead serial killer Travis Mitchell, in black and white he sees him murder several naked buxom women (done in point of view, or POV). Old rich but crippled scientist Everett (David Warner, great actor) makes him an offer that Ed can't refuse but is in fact a trick in which, via a combination of science and Shamanism, their minds swap bodies. Old Everett now becomes young Ed but he has also been infected with the warped mind of Mitchell (serve him right!). This may sound complex but it is easy to follow. Pam gets top billing and although she was no doubt cast for her looks rather than her acting ability she plays the part well enough. Britt does strip off for some steamy sex scenes with lucky Ed. At first I wondered if a body double had been used as her face is covered by her blonde hair but no, Pam did indeed strip off (she's not a natural blonde if you look closely, if you know what I mean). For me that is good enough reason alone to watch this very mid-nineties erotic Sci-Fi/horror but I found the whole movie enjoyable, far better than the current.3.3/10 scores suggests. Talking about Britt to a potential love rival Ed tells him "She's a big girl, I think she knows what she can handle.." - surely an unintentional double entendre, ha ha.

Boring, dated, and devoid of talent both in front of and behind the camera

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 1 September 2016]

This ill-conceived slice of straight-to-video fodder is pointless in every respect. A predictable, clichéd plot combines with a total disregard for logic and realism to scupper this project from the start. It's difficult to know who the film is aimed at; part erotic thriller, part sci fi hokum, it doesn't really know what it wants to be. So the makers decided to throw in a load of mumbo-jumbo and sets lifted straight out of THE FLY and mix it with the old standby of immortality in a bid to have an interesting premise. The result? They failed miserably.

The main thrust of the film is that David Warner tricks Brian Krause into letting him project his own personality into his body. This is handled in such an incompetent manner that it's difficult to know, let alone care, what on earth is going on. Confused? You will be. The leaden acting of the lead, Brian Krause, also helps to destroy any interest this film might have held. Krause has a single expression on his face for the entire film and simply can't act. You're in a sad way when you get upstaged by Pamela Anderson. Speaking of old Pam, she pops up in a minor role in order to shed her clothes a couple of times. Is she as dizzy and bubble-headed as her reputation would suggest? In a word, yes. Other women appear naked in flashbacks for no other reason than to titillate the male viewer, so at least there is the unintentional humour value.

Two veteran actors struggle to make the best of their roles but, to be honest, they're wasted. David Warner is hardly what you would call stretched in his role as an evil scientist, it's the same shtick we've seen him play a million times: apparently cultured and eloquent, but dastardly evil nonetheless. Dean Stockwell also pops up in what amounts to a cameo appearance, he is on screen for only five minutes of the film. There's some cheap, rubbishy-looking CGI work which offers no interest and a lack of gore and violence to further anger those die-hard horror fans. In all, it's a bit of a waste of time, and certainly not worth bothering with.

If you're a fan of Pam, go for it

[chickmagnetcrabbman · 12 October 2002]

The acting and plotting of this film is just plain boring and pretty terrible. If, however, you like to see Pamela Anderson's fantastic body (I do, but it doesn't make a film), then you'll get something out of this. The T&A is highly enjoyable, but ultimately this film feels pointless and uninteresting. 2/10.

Fair (at best) movie, with a pin-up calendar cut through it.

[rrempel · 5/10 · 5 February 1999]

Actually, I though Pamela Anderson was the worst thing (OK, except for eye-appeal...) about it. Her character would be a throw-away except for the gratuitous nudity. Lord, the story wasn't great, but it would have had more continuity without her. Oh yeah, the picture on the video box has nothing to do with the movie ... big surprise?

Title Says It All

[refinedsugar · 5/10 · 28 July 2023]

I'm willing to bet hard money you picked this up off video stores shelves for the same reason I did. I mean they weren't too subtle telling us why we should give 'Naked Souls' a go. You just have to sit thru a b-movie plot reminiscence of 'Freejack' involving the transferring of mind into another person's body to get to the good stuff with Pamela Anderson.

There's no denying she looked great sans clothes back in 1996 and ultimately it's what saves this flick from being unwatchable. Brian Krause gets to play the young scientist who comes up with this tech. Pam is his girlfriend. While David Warner plays the rich old benefactor who supplies him with cash and has an ulterior motive to get closer to his work. Dean Stockwell puts in a quick, rather pointless appearance.

There's a half-baked serial killer angle attached which allows for the sight of more female nudity, but it never goes anywhere being barely built up. 'Naked Souls' doesn't have a story or characters worth talking about at length. It does however supply what you came for in the end allowing Pam to go topless and get felt up twice.

The worst Pamela Anderson flick ever made!!!

[belle1982 · 1/10 · 21 February 1999]

The sci-fi/suspense flick "Naked Souls" was too busy focusing on the naked women including Pamela herself instead of focusing on the sci-fi/suspense and the storyline action. Talented veteran Brit actor David Warner is the most highlight as the dying, sinister mad scientist (again!) who transfer his soul to her genius boyfriend whose soul was totally infected and turn Warner into a serial maniac. An actor like David Warner shouldn't waste his good talents in this piece-of-porno type crap of movie!!!! This movie is like one of the other Playboy videos of Pamela Anderson spotlights, well better stick with her movie "Barb Wire"!

Not Pammy's finest hour...

[Infofreak · 24 June 2001]

Seeing the name Pamela Anderson (or Alyssa Milano) on the back of a video box invariably means b-grade trash. The question is is it GOOD b-grade trash or not? Hard to say with this one. If mad scientists, techno shamanism, a serial killer, thought transference and plenty of naked babes (including the delectable Justina Vail) sound like your scene, then check this one out and make up your own mind. I can't say it'll end up in my top ten, but I found it suprisingly watchable, and it costars DAVID WARNER. Nuff said. Just imagine how cheesy and fun this is going to look in twenty years time!

Saying Pamela Anderson...

[Gislef · 12 August 1998]

...is the best part of a movie is truly scary, but there it is. She and Brian Krause roll around naked, while David Warner and Dean Stockwell do the best they can to save this turkey. However, the basic plot is mediocre at best: even a better actress (meaning...well just about anyone, except maybe Anna Nicole Smith) and Sir John Gielgud would have had their work cut out for them making anything out of this plot.

A vehicle for Pam's only real assets

[Ta'Lon · 19 April 1999]

I used to refer to Pam as "Dead Parrot Anderson" (a comment on her acting abilities), until I realised that this was an insult to the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, which was a FAR better actor.

I think Pam's breasts are displayed in the first 4 minutes of this film - if this film was meant to be "erotic" in some way, there could at least have been some buildup to the sex scenes.

Some more characterisation so that we could have a little interest in the people (up & coming artist, with brilliant but pre-occupied scientist boyfriend, lecherous "friend" after the girl - surely the scriptwriter could have done a little more with this situation) before Pam reveals all would have gone a long way. I have no objection to such scenes if they are really part of the plot, but here they were quite irrelevant.