"All the Young Wives"
All the Young Wives (1975) is an exploitation film directed by Mike Ripps. It is a Something Weird Video CD-R release, most of which are early soft and hard core. This film has a strong plot and acting. True, all three women in the film show at least breasts and have sex, but it is more like mainstream 70s drive-in fare. Big Jim is a rich asshole, who keeps his young wife a prisoner in their home while he screws everything in skirts. He does have one other interest, besides other men's wives. He wants a winning race horse. While he is out on a hunting trip, and screwing his accountants wife, his horse trainer gets together with his misses, which leads to a great horse stall brawl at the end, leading to a horse race for the happy ending. Seems the trainer had a horse of his own.
The wife was play by Linda Cook, of Guiding Light and As the World Turns fame. She shows her right breast in a dark sex scene. The accountants wife was played by Edie Kramer, who shows breasts in good light. April Johnson as one of the asshole's conquests shows breasts and partial bush. IMDb is a little confused here, and list both All the Young Wives and Naked Rider. Naked Rider is simply a re-release of All the Young Wives. They are the same film. Either way, there are not enough votes for a score. The transfer is not especially good. It is full of scratches, and is mostly over-exposed, resulting in poor contrast and color saturation. Still and all, it is an ok, if somewhat predictable film. C-.
I suppose you sorta understand who Alfred Kinsey was. He was a
scientist who began his career in entomology, having eventually
collected one million gall wasps over a period of two decades.
Somewhere around the age of 40, he more or less accidentally ended
up teaching a course in human sexuality, and found that it was
difficult to do so because nobody really knew anything.
The first question that people usually asks a
supposed expert in sex is "am I
normal?" Before Dr. Kinsey's time, and when he began to teach his
course, nobody knew the answer. There were no systematic studies of
masturbation, sexual positions, gender preference, genital size,
female orgasms, or much of anything else sexual. If you masturbated
twice a day and were wondering whether you were truly odd, nobody
could tell you how many people masturbated more, or less than you,
or if you were doing something harmful.
If you had your first sexual encounter at 13, nobody could tell you
whether that was earlier than most folks. If you had a homosexual
encounter, there was no evidence to tell you how many people shared
Lacking facts with any scientific validity, Dr.
Kinsey's course was filled with uncertainties, and he resolved to
end that by finding out the answers to the key
questions by studying human beings in the same dispassionate way he
had studied gall wasps - by collecting massive amounts of data from
hundreds of thousands of subjects and then assembling statistical
analyses of the data. He published two famous, earth-shattering
studies called "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" and "Sexual
Behavior in the Human Female".
The 1948 male volume made Dr. Kinsey a mainstream
scientific star, much as Carl Sagan was in a later era. It was not
only the best-selling scientific book ever written up to that point,
but it even made the regular best seller lists side-by-side with the
potboilers. The book's publication also caused Dr. Kinsey to be
reviled in certain circles, especially among those who argued that
his objectivity was tantamount to an absence of morality. Maybe it
was. There is no question that Dr. Kinsey began the process of loosing
the hold which religious fundamentalists had on the law. It was very
difficult to argue for the illegality of practices which Professor Kinsey
showed to be prevalent. 37% of men had at least one homosexual
experience. Most people practiced oral sex. Just about all men loved
nudie pictures. Yet most of these United States had laws against one
or more of those things. In essence, given the then-existing laws
and Kinsey's findings, just about every man was a criminal. As
Dr. Kinsey himself put it, "Everybody's crime is no crime at all."
The religious fundamentalists had to give up their
hold on the law, albeit reluctantly. They did not have to give up
their hold on sin, however, and that is where they came into the
most direct conflict with Professor Kinsey. The "Human Male" volume
showed that every man masturbated. Given that fact, how could the
churches continue to preach that it was a sin? Well, they could, and
did, in spite of the professor's admonition that "Everybody's sin is
nobody's sin." Kinsey understood many things, but sin was not one of
them. Theologians felt that a universal behavior could still be
sinful, because mankind's greatest achievement was to reach purity
by rising above shameful and base animal instincts.
Kinsey's male volume outraged the fundies, but made him a secular
saint. The 1953 female volume, on the other hand, transformed
him into a monster in the eyes of everyone but the objective scientific
community. Men had been willing to recognize their own peccadilloes,
but were not yet ready to face the fact that their daughters and
mothers and wives were masturbating and fantasizing behind their
backs. Men still patronize and act paternal toward women in modern
society, but the half century since Kinsey's report has brought a
lot of progress, so you can begin to imagine the attitudes which the
professor's book encountered. In Dr. Kinsey's time, women were still posing
demurely and purely on
men's pedestals, and Kinsey seemed to be toppling them.
So what about the movie?
Well, there are a bunch of ways to look at biopics.
They may have several purposes, and probably should succeed on
more than one level.
Biopics may be educational.
This film succeeds well in that department. Before
watching this film, I knew only that Kinsey was a famous sex
researcher. I didn't know anything about the work he did, its
importance, or the context of how it was accepted. I didn't
know anything about what kind of man he was or how he got into this
kind of work. After viewing the film, I feel like I have a very
thorough understanding of all of those matters, so chalk up a great
big "A" on the report card for "education".
Biopics may be cinematic.
Ah, here's kind of a problem for this film. A truly
great biopic has to be a pic first and bio second. Amadeus and
Immortal Beloved are good movies because they are good stories. If
Mozart and Beethoven did not really exist, or if the facts in the
movies were incorrect, it would not really matter. Those will still
be terrific movies.
Kinsey has no cinematic hook to make it work like
those two movies, except for some good humor. It is pretty much just a straightforward
chronological biography. Like any such life-encompassing movie, it
tries to cover too much, and ends up introducing elements without
developing them. (Kinsey's relationship with his brother is
introduced, then dropped. Kinsey's relationship with his son is
introduced, then dropped. )
Biopics should try to paint the whole
Kinsey pulled away from the Full Monty. It is no
longer controversial that Professor Kinsey showed the high incidence
of male homosexual encounters, nor is that frequency still a secret.
It is now well known that all males masturbate, and that increased
frequency does not lead to a loss of sexual potency later in life,
nor infertility, nor insanity, nor hairy palms. Kinsey's work is
responsible for forcing society to confront and change its attitudes
toward these things. But Kinsey's work also introduced many concepts
that were controversial then and are still controversial now, and
the film simply backed off from those.
For example, Kinsey suggested that sex between adults
and children was much more common than had ever been thought, and
that the children in those relationships did not differ
significantly from other people when they became adults. Obviously,
that finding did not influence society's attitude toward pedophiles.
The film might have become really brilliant if it had examined why
Kinsey's findings caused people to change their attitudes toward
some things, but not toward others. Obviously there is some point at
which almost every individual draws a line and says "I don't care
what the facts say, I choose to believe something else." Do you see
why this is troublesome for everyone, whether liberal or
For the liberals and freethinkers who applaud Dr. Kinsey
and the impact he had on society, the childhood data means that
they, too, are willing to draw a line where the facts are not
relevant if they conflict with deeply-held beliefs. If that is true,
they must admit that it is OK for a line to be drawn, and the debate
simply centers on where to draw the line, not whether
it should be drawn. Liberals do not want to make that concession.
For the religious conservatives, it means that the
scientific facts could lead to a further intrusion into their
guardianship of morality.
In fact, society's collective concept of morality is
merely a matter of determining where to draw the line, primarily by evaluating
where most individuals draw the line. If we had absolute proof
tomorrow that children who have sex with their parents grow up to be
happier and more productive adults than those who do not, and that a
very high percentage of adults do have sex with their children or
stepchildren, we would still not move the line of acceptability to
include intergenerational incest. As a society, we would still
believe such behavior to be "wrong", even if were widespread and
beneficial. That is deeply ingrained in us. Yet if Dr Kinsey were to
see the same evidence, he would probably have argued that such a
finding should cause that line to be moved. Remember what I said
earlier - "Obviously there is some point at which almost every
individual draws a line and ... " Note the word "almost". Dr Kinsey
was the very reason why that word was in that sentence. The
intransigence of his character and his stubborn unwillingness to
compromise scientific objectivity with a society's collective sense
of morality would have been highlighted by making the film include
Kinsey's most controversial findings, not just the safest ones which
have already been incorporated into our consciousness.
This would have made Kinsey a better film because it
would have allowed the viewer in 2004 to walk in the same shoes that
the general public wore in 1953, thus to understand why the
professor was so hated back then, and to confront Kinsey as people in
the 50s confronted him. The film as it exists now allows us the
comfort of smiling patronizingly at the people in those days who
were too foolish to see the obvious.
At its heart, this film is as safe and unchallenging as any
of the biopics produced by mainstream Hollywood in the studio days.
Because the film chose the safe path, it has been overrated by the
critics. You should expect that. It is a film which told the critics
everything they wanted to hear, confirmed their own sense of
superiority to the masses, and hid from their view any
finding that would have lumped liberal intellectual critics with the
ignoramuses of 1953.
At any rate, I suppose I have strayed too far into
what the film should have been and have gotten off the path of
describing what it actually is. Go back up to my earlier point.
Biopics are sort of like basketball players in that they have many
ways to score and don't have to master every single way. A biopic
may score on education, on entertainment, or on provocation.
Basketball players may score on lay-ups, long jumpers, or acrobatic
aerial maneuvers. It is not necessary for a basketball player to do
all three in order to be good, because if he can do all three, he is
Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan, and is not merely good, but of
unearthly brilliance. Kinsey is not of unearthly brilliance.
The film cannot do it all. It is not innovative in either style or
content. It is not provocative except to the same close-minded types
who found Professor Kinsey's original books provocative. It is not
immensely entertaining, although it is very funny in spots. It is not an especially tight script.
does teach about an odd, fascinating man and his ground-breaking
work in a completely painless, easy-to-digest format, laced with
lots of humor, and I enjoyed
the learning process immensely. It ain't at that Michael Jordan
level of greatness, as
some critics might lead you to believe, but it can still put some
points on the board. It is still mighty good,
and I enjoyed it for what it is.
Sex and the Freakin' City,
Season 29 (2004):
Actually it is Season Six and a Half. For some reason they came back
and did more of Season Six after a hiatus, or something, I don't
know, and I don't care.
Here's the summary. Kim Cattrall did 100% of the nudity this time.
Season Six, part 2 (eight episodes)
Episode 1 - nada
Episode 2 - Kim Cattrall flashes her breasts in an exam for her boob
Episode 3 - Kim Cattrall flashes her breasts at another doctor - in
her cancer exam (1,
Episode 4 - no nudity from Kim, but she looks really young and
gorgeous in a t-shirt, no bra
Episode 5 - no real nudity, but she wears a bra contraption that
doesn't cover everything.
Episode 6 - nada
Episode 7 - nada
Episode 8 - the series goes out with a bang - literally - as
Kim comes back from her cancer treatment by showing the Full Monty
in a sex scene with her studly young boyfriend, finishing up with a
screaming climax. (1,
STRANDED TRAVELERS INFORMED THAT AIRLINE DOES NOT EXIST.
Non-existent Spokesman Apologizes to Thousands
Here are the final official figures for the Weekend Box Office of
December 24-26, tracking 89 films.
A cocky bittorrent site in Sweden says "fuck you" to all legal
threats from movie and record companies. So far they
have gotten away with it, and have published all their
correspondence. Here is my favorite exchange:
- Letter to them: "Also please note that making this email
public or ridiculing it will result in immediate legal action
and we are also contacting RipeNCC for suspension." (I don't
know the background, but obviously there must be a European law
against ridiculing lawyers, kind of like those French laws
against ridiculing homosexuals.)
- Letter back from them: "You have scored 10 out of 10 points
on our Legal Threats Entertainment scale. You win the grand
prize: A lifetime of ridicule on our legal threats section!
- Our kind of retrospective -
2004: The Year In See-Through Dresses
The arrival of a tidal wave is caught on a poolside camera at a
Drug companies issue "Michael Moore alert".
The death toll from the southern Asia earthquake rose dramatically
today, with some reports estimating that 23,700 people had died in
the resulting tidal waves
Weekly World News: "WHY MEN WITH POT-BELLIES TURN WOMEN ON".
"most ladies prefer a portly boyfriend with a protruding gut,
because it suggests that the man could care less about superficial
issues, such as health and personal hygiene, which affords him
more time to lavish attention on his mate."
George Carlin in rehab after 'too much wine and Vicodin"
Official 2004 White House Christmas Card: Divine Season's
Greetings from America's Divinely-appointed Royal Dynasty
This week's theater counts. There are no new movies in
wide release this week. The ones linked below all have good
reviews, but they are being released in a few theaters in NY and
LA solely for the purpose of obtaining Oscar eligibility in 2004.
Among the carry-over films, I think there will be some screens
available - those currently playing the widely released megabomb,
The Flight of the Phoenix - but at this point I'm not sure exactly
which films will get those screens.
- This week's movies:
The Woodsman - 82% positive reviews
- This week's movies:
In Good Company - 75% positive reviews.
- This week's movies:
A Love Song for Bobby Long - 69% positive reviews.
- This week's movies:
The Assassination of Richard Nixon - 71% positive reviews.
- This week's movies:
William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice - 75% positive
Facts about The Magi.
- There is no reason to believe they were three in number,
except that three gifts were mentioned. Christian art from the
first centuries of the Church shows various numbers of Magi,
ranging from 2 to 8. The Eastern Church assumes 12. It could
have been one rich guy with both gold and frankincense, and
several poor guys with nothing but myrrh. Perhaps the Bethlehem
gift shop was having a big after-Christmas markdown on myrrh.
- There is absolutely no reason to believe they were kings,
and there is good reason to believe they were actually priests
and astrologers. At the time of the birth of Jesus, the Magi
were an ancient priestly caste dwelling within the Parthian
empire. In fact, the New English Bible translates the passage as
"after the birth astrologers from the east arrived" No early
church father held the Magi to be kings.
- The three names we have given them were simply made up as a
folk tale in the 5th or 6th century.
- There is no reason to picture them as representing three
different races of man. They were probably all from the Middle
East! The Parthian Empire was centered in modern day Iran.
- There is no reason to believe they visited a newborn in a
stable at the time of Christ's birth. The bible says "when they
were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his
mother". They came into a house, not a stable, and they saw a
young child, not a baby.
Year 2004 was the most expensive ever for the insurance industry
in coping worldwide with weather-related natural disasters.
And that sentence was written before the disastrous earthquakes
and flooding in Asia.
Jet Li is missing after the big Earthquake in Asia. "He
was on holiday in the Maldives-islands with his wife and children.
His manager tried to get in contact with Li after the tsunamis
destroyed most of those islands but can't get hold of him. He's
officially on the missing persons-list for the Maldives."
The Mushroom Girls Virus Book. Who knew that mushrooms
"Are you interested in offering quality Holy Water in your
home-town?" A lot of churches are offering second-rate
Holy Water. This firm offers "the most aseptic Holy Water in the
entire world", real, purified Viennese Holy Water.
Astronomy Pic o' the Day - Andromeda's Core
BRAWL ERUPTS AT REINDEER GAMES. Rudolph Suspended for
Other Crap archives. May also include newer material than the
since it's sorta in real time.
to submit a URL for Other Crap
are the latest movie reviews available at scoopy.com.
- The yellow asterisks indicate that I wrote the
review, and am deluded into thinking it includes humor.
- If there is a white asterisk, it means that
there isn't any significant humor, but I inexplicably determined
there might be something else of interest.
- A blue asterisk indicates the review is written
by Tuna (or Junior or Brainscan, or somebody else besides me)
- If there is no asterisk, I wrote it, but am too
ashamed to admit it.