"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-.

  • Thumbnails
  • Thumbnails

  • April Johnson (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
  • Edie Kramer (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
  • Linda Cook (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

  • Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy)

    Kinsey (2004):

    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 your experience.

    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?

    Oh, yeah.

    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 picture.

    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 conservative?

    • 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.

    But it 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.

    • Laura Linney (1, 2)


    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 job (1, 2)

    Episode 3 - Kim Cattrall flashes her breasts at another doctor - in her cancer exam (1, 2, 3)

    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, 2, 3)


    Other Crap:

    Other Crap archives. May also include newer material than the links above, since it's sorta in real time.

    Click here to submit a URL for Other Crap




    Here 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.


    Words, pictures, and vids from ICMS

    Agent Trouble (1987)

    Yesterday I was watching on DVD "Agent Trouble"(1987), a film by French director Jean-Pierre Mocky. The film itself was not too special but had some nice camerawork and lighting. The story tells us what really happened in a so called bus accident in which 50 people are killed. We learn that there is far more to it and there is a cover-up by the authorities. This is normal stuff for Mocky who always criticizes the hypocrisy in our society and the not so neat wheelings and dealings of those in power. Sometimes Mocky does so brilliantly, sometimes he's mediocre.

    What came as a complete surprise in this movie though is a young Kristin Scott Thomas in a small part. One could already see that she wasn't wearing a bra in this scene, so you kept wondering if she would be wearing panties. Watch the caps and the clip and you'll know ! The man with Kristin in this scene is Richard Bohringer, father of Romane, also not unknown to Fun House readers. 

    SCOOP'S NOTE: Tremendous find!!! As far as I know, this was her first nude scene, and I was not aware of its existence.

    Crimson Ghost
    NOTE: We currently have to do all of our movie files in zip format. Instead of viewing them online, save the zip files to your hard drive in the directory of your choice, un-zip and play from there.

    Today from the Ghost...a few assorted vids, zipped .wmvs as usual.

    • A modern classic! Here are Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon gettin' it on lesbo style in "Bound" (1996).

    • Suzanne Somers showing off her fantastic breasts in a scene from one of her earliest movies, "Magnum Force" (1973).

    • Here is some other unknown blonde babe baring breasts and bum in scenes from the second Dirty Harry movie, "Magnum Force" (1973). (1, 2)

    'Caps and comments by Spaz:

    First Wave: season three
    Traci Lords joins the cast although that did not get the series from getting canceled or even released to video. However she does have a semi-nude scene in episode "Legacy" and later jumps in the sack with Sebastian Spence in episode "Requiem". These pics are from the syndicated episodes but there may be an unrated European version with even more nudity. Can someone confirm this?

    Sydne Rome The American born star of Euro-cinema (especially in the 70's, but still acting today). Here she is baring her breats in scenes from the German movie "Reigen" (1973).

    Franziska Walser Topless in a scene from the 1982 German mini-series "Bekenntnisse des Hochstaplers Felix Krull".

    Marie Colbin Topless and also showing a bit of pubes in scenes from "Bekenntnisse des Hochstaplers Felix Krull".

    Beatrice Kessler Full frontal bath tub nudity in a scene from "Der Westen leuchtet" (1982).

    Kareen Schröter Showing all 3 B's in scenes from her first movie "Sieben Sommersprossen" aka "Seven Freckles" (1978). Fair warning, there is also full frontal dude nudity.

    Jacqéline Pöggel Breasts and bush from 1980's "Polizeiruf 110 - In einer Sekunde".

    Teresa Harder Going topless in scenes from "Dunckel" (1999).

    Scorpion's Skinemax
    First up, Scoprion takes a look at the 1992 direct-to-vid thriller "Night Rhythms".

    Taking a break from Skinemax....

    • Here is Blanchard Ryan showing breasts and pubes in scenes from the indie flick "Open Water".

    Eva Green
    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

    Amazing toplessness and frontal views in scenes from the Bernardo Bertolucci movie "The Dreamers". All actresses should follow Eva's lead and make their screen debuts this way!

    Milla Jovovich
    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

    Ana Danilina and
    Venice Grant
    (1, 2, 3, 4)

    Señor Skin takes a look at "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" (The Special Edition comes out today on DVD). We see Milla's breasts while she is fully nude underwater. Danilina and Grant are topless zombie chicks. (Danilina on the left, Grant on the right).