Not weird enough
Elfstone | 08/30/2003
(3 out of 5 stars)
"i bought this cause it is soft porn, a double feature, and had plenty of extras. unfortunately...the soft porn is really soft, very little of it is actually erotic or sexy. both films fail to capitalize on these aspects because of their inherent campiness.i actually preferred Cleo over R&J, but not by much. neither are very good but at least Cleo had a little more sensuality, more "love" scenes, while R&J was almost a comedy(an unfunny one at that)the extras are ok, but unless you're a die hard fan or an extreme collector, you'll probably access them just once.overall, if you're looking for high eroticism or classic porn, look elsewhere. if you're just looking for something different, then this just might be weird enough to hold your interest. personally, i found it to be too run of the mill to be anything special."
Lovely, Unenhanced Actresses
Elfstone | San Francisco | 11/09/2006
(5 out of 5 stars)
"This is a classic from the late sixties. Zefferelli's Romeo & Juliet had just won several awards; Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In was the most popular comedy/satire show on TV. So, this film was set up in the same format as Laugh-In, with cut aways to cameos, and liberally peppered with Laugh-In's catch phrase "Sock it to me!" It was a simpler age, when all a naked redhead had to do in a movie was--well--be naked. And all natural, of course. The Cleopatra flick was OK."
"Sock It To Me!"
Carlos Burning | North Syracuse, USA | 12/26/2006
(5 out of 5 stars)
"This 1969 cult-hit amounts to a bawdy parody of Shakespeare's early tragedy. While the film dispenses with nearly all the play's poetry it has an appeal of its own--a sense of joyfulness or playfulness running through all its orgies, nudities, sexual frolics. It reminds me most of a Mozart opera--without the music, but with much greater explicitness. Perhaps if we were all blessed with more beauty or more imagination, life itself would resemble this fantastic, witty, uninhibited little film."