The Disco Dolls in Hot Skin (1978) User Reviews

Harry Balls Who?

[Quicksand · 5/10 · 20 April 2003]

How does one rate a "movie" like this? It's not sexy, the acting is terrible and the writing/direction are non-existent. The plot is impossible to follow, and the only attractive woman in the film spends most of her time making it with the ugliest dude.

There's exactly one funny joke, which the "filmmakers" know because they keep repeating it over and over again, until it stops being funny, then becomes funny again.

AND, even though John Homes is listed in the credits, he's only in the movie for one scene and he doesn't even talk (though he does grunt a bit).

On the other hand... this is an adult film in 3-D.

And that's funny.

5/10.

as much as it might entice you to see 3D porno... it's not worth it...

[Quinoa1984 · 4/10 · 15 March 2009]

There's a reason one doesn't see that many 1970s XXX movies shown in 3D anymore, if ever, and Disco Girls in Hot Skin is one of the few exceptions likely ever to come out. It plays from time to time at midnight screenings around the US, and it played recently in New York city. I saw it, curious just to see not even so much what a porno would look like on a big screen (having grown up post Taxi Driver/present internet generation the theaters for XXX simply don't exist anymore in the city even if I was so inclined to go) but in 3D. And the answer: about what one should expect unless if they're expectations are too high. The film might have been shot in 3D, of that I am not sure at all yet. From the looks of things, either way, the people behind the movie did a very poor job of putting it together.

Now, I don't mean this entirely in terms of it as an actual movie, though as a 1970s hardcore porno one has to expect that it's a) repetitive and stupid and occasionally pretty boring, and b) at best, and there are some 'best-of' moments, it's completely cheesy, hilarious disco-era sex-ploitation fun. What I mean is that it's just not at all worth the 3D hype; watching it with the old-school blue and red glasses (note to those expecting a recent experience like out of Coraline or My Bloody Valentine 3D) is retarded, since the colors are already washed out of the print and by putting the glasses on you're not getting that much at all of the original images, however not very well filmed and sometimes just downright f***ing horrible the shots can get, and it's just lots of blue and red filtered together, with images appearing in double. Only a car chase, which happens for about 15 seconds, is worth any of the trouble. Lame. Simple as that.

You know who you are already if you have any desire to see this movie, or then again maybe you don't. You might think that you'll want to see it just for kicks, and if that's the case it's just OK. You should seek out actual GOOD exploitation movie-fare ala Jack Hill pictures or Death Race 2000 or even crazy biker flicks before having to venture into such bizarre and SUPER low budget territory. Some jokes like the recurring psychiatrist who just POPS right into frame (literally, I'm serious) to give advice to the one guy who can't get "it" up are pretty amazing, as are the old-school Star Trek props like the rocks thrown in the climax, and a couple of lines of dialog or just a super-duper random cutaway were funny.

Other times it just got to be what you'd KNOW going into the movie it would be, which is rampant hardcore sex of all the varieties save for man-on-man, and how this will affect you will depend on how you view pornography. I'm not disgusted by it, but it's never a turn on in the slightest so except for the guilty pleasure of being in a midnight screening of other crazed and drunken fools yelling and howling at the screen (and the laughter sometimes caused by just laughing at oneself for getting into something like this) it becomes tedious and just, well, bland, even for supposedly "classy" 1970s porno.

And save for a couple of moments of actual disco it falters on that count as well: because it's an underground porno with a couple of big names (John Holmes gets top billing but is only in one scene oddly enough), it doesn't have any real money or resources to make itself a period piece save for a couple of shots at a rinky-dink club and a couple of afros here and there. It's got the crummy disco music but nothing to make it ever in the slightest memorable. Its gimmick really rests on the 3D and since that makes one dizzy enough to fall down the stairs trying to get out of the movie theater on the way out, there's only the scatter-shot moments of sleaze that entertain. It was an experience I was glad to have once, and now never, ever again. It's for real die-hard hardcore fans only, and next time I'll know a lot better... that is until the re-release of Jaws 3D!

Great B-movie porno fun, but hardly 3-D and barely featuring John Holmes

[user54 · 13 October 2002]

Like many others, I saw this as a midnight art house rescreening. Naturally, one is hesitant to sit through two hours of bad 70s porn without being able to fast-forward, and with the potential lack of good scenes to fast-forward to.

But as it turns out, Hot Skin in 3D deserves more credit than that. I suppose this is the one pornographic film I've ever noticed playing at art houses for a reason. Rightfully, it's not a really fantastic movie-going experience. Too bad, there goes my dream of yuppies and soccer moms at the Angelika suddenly realizing pornography is suitable as mainstream entertainment.

The film has more campy plot than even most 70's porn. In fact, it's much closer to a real plot than any other porn film I've ever seen, although I'm not much of an expert. But compared to Behind the Green Door, Deep Throat, and Debbie Does Dallas, you can actually watch this movie without forgetting where the story's going. I'd really rather see this on the big screen than even The Devil in Miss Jones. As an often amusing campy B-flick and hardcore porno rolled into one, it's a good introduction to 70's porn. This film is actually an average campy B-movie even if you ignore the sex, although the sex itself is integral to the hilarity of the feature.

The film has some cool scenes designed for 3-D amusement, although not a great many of them. Unfortunately, it seems 3-D technology in 1977 was pitiful, and was hardly really 3-D at all. If you really try to pretend it's 3-D, you can get a little effect out of it, but it's more akin to watching a 3-D movie without the glasses.

Also, beware that this really isn't a John Holmes film. This was at the start of his career, so he's just a sex-extra in the movie for about a minute or two, in one group scene. His name does appears on the beginning credits [JOHN "THE WAD" HOLMES, which got quite a laugh], which may indicate he had achieved some fame shortly after the making of this film that the producers thought to take advantage of. Also, the film is often promoted as if he's the star. That's very misleading.

It Is What It Is - Not Matter What Version You See

[louissaphire · 2/10 · 29 August 2010]

Aw, yes just one of the many eye straining "Deep Vision" 3-D skin flicks from the mid to late Seventies. Hot Skin is the hard version and Disco Dolls In Hot Skin is the medium version and Blonde Emanuel is the soft core re-release. The 3-D was produced through a special (as in Olympics) lens that was supposed to create an anaglyphic (that cost effective old red and blue type) stereo image by using a prism beam splitter built into the lens attachment. What you get in effect is pretty much non-3-D because there is no way to control the separation of the two images. So you get a right image in one color and a left image in another color and another slightly right image in yet another color and so forth an so on. I'm not even sure if one could even turn a print into a watchable 2-D version (in some sequences there's as many as six images in varies colors on top of the normal color!) let alone fix the 3-D. There really isn't any plot to get in the way of the action - in fact mid way through the bit of vague plot is just dropped altogether. A product of its time, worth only a watch in a theater at midnight or with a lot of friends while drinking.

campy porno fun

[theeht · 9 August 2001]

I saw this as a reissued film at a midnite showing in NYC and the full house was laughing hysterically. As a campy film this is worthwhile, but sexually there is not much to recommend, except Lesllie Bovee, who was always hot.

A laugh riot

[jsnipe · 14 June 1999]

I find it hard to believe that I am the only person in Denver to comment on this movie, considering it's three week run at the mayan. I found it altogether hilarious (with the exception of "hairy balls who?"). Maybe if it wasn't two hours long, I would of been more amused afterwards.

Not too funny

[benneke · 8 February 1999]

This movie was not funny, in the sense of humorous. It was amusing because it was so bad. The 3D effect adds extra cheesiness. Worth seeing for a goofy time with friends, but not for its own sake.

Murder a la porn

[lazarillo · 23 August 2009]

I'm a little embarrassed to admit I have now seen BOTH of the 3-D 1970's hardcore porn movies (the other being "Hard Candy") that are currently making the rounds at the midnight movies. This is definitely the "best" of the two ("best" obviously being a very relative term here).

As a sex movie this isn't great. Only the lead, Serena, and, to a lesser extent, Leslee Bovee are partucularly attractive, and at times I actually felt sorry for the poor male actors who had to maintain arousal while being serviced by some of these skanks, I mean, girls. But if you want a porno for the sex, you're better off watching it at home with one hand on the fast-forward button and the other covered with Jergen's lotion than going to a midnight movie. The "comedy", unfortunately, is even worse than the sex--the "Harry Balls who?" joke wasn't funny the first time, and after about the twentieth time. . .

What I did like about this movie is that it contained two transgressive murder scenes. The second was more gory, but the first was more disturbing (albeit very silly)--the villain "Harry Balls" drowns an unfortunate woman in a big bowl of soup while having anal sex with her! Now I know some people claim you shouldn't mix real sex and fake violence because people might confuse the two (and you might have some kind of soup-dunking/anal-sex copycat murder). But to me that's like saying you shouldn't drink cold beer in a hot tub because you might start bathing in cold beer and/or drinking hot tub water. Even when they're in the same scene, real sex and fake violence are enjoyable, but for COMPLETE DIFFERENT REASONS. Besides, for me at least, I always get uncomfortable in movies where people are constantly having sex, but no one is getting killed or dying--it's like nature is out of balance or something. But if that's too weird for you, consider this: porno actors are typically terrible and their characters are very annoying, so any excuse to get rid of them after they "do their thing" is certainly justifiable.

Anyway, I wouldn't recommend this either as a porn film or a "comedy", but it might be worth seeing at a midnight movie (provided you sneak in without paying).