|
1. Is the sex hot? No, It is average by genre standards.
2. Is the sex creative, or creatively filmed? Most
of it is standard stuff, but a couple of scenes are inventive. About
average overall.
3. Is the sex in good lighting? Some yes, some no.
Call it average, or slightly below.
4. Is the nudity comprehensive? Not at all. Only
one of the four women does a clear unobstructed frontal with her
face in the frame. The other three offer breasts-and-face
only.
5. Are the women attractive? Just adequate, not
spectacular. Two of the four have real breasts, which most people
consider a plus.
6. Is the performing solid? Yes. It is not
Branagh's Henry V, but is average or above average by genre
standards.
|
|
7. Are the plot and production values solid?
Amazingly, yes. It looks like a real movie, and the plot is almost
good enough to hold one's attention without the sex scenes. That is
the film's strength. The racing scenes are cool, the film has a good
look, and the plot has a beginning, middle, and end. The film is
quite skillfully edited.
Unfortunately, the positives in areas 6 and 7 are
not as important to genre fans as the other five areas - in which
the film is average or below average. In addition, Tuna disagrees on
point seven anyway, so that doesn't really leave anything as a
compelling draw. |
TUNA's THOUGHTS
|
|
Thrust (2003) is a
skinemax sports cliche soft-core which IMDB calls Maximum
Thrust. The sport this time is street racing. We have Robyn
Hyden as the former champ who lost her driver and her reputation
when her new experimental car exploded. She blames the new king
of the sport, Onyx, claiming that he sabotaged the car. She is
now trying a comeback. She is out of money, her car needs parts
she can't afford, and she is afraid to use her special
modification as it might be dangerous. Former Dallas Cheerleader
Beverly Lynne is a new but talented driver whom she hires to
drive her car, so she can concentrate on the engine work.
Her assistant is Nicole Oring, and Onyx's main squeeze is Akira
Lane. Hyden shows everything in a sex scene, ad the other three
women show everything in two sex scenes each. As a matter of
fact, way too much time is devoted to the sex scenes, even for a
soft-core. The plot is totally predictable, and most of the nude
scenes are very dark. It has the requisite nudity for a
soft-core, but the plot is not at all engaging.
|
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
|
| The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics,
or a C- from our system.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.
Based on this description,
this is a C- (both reviewers). It is an adequate,
but not good, genre film that
will not disappoint you if you read the comments above and still
want to see it, but there is no overwhelming reason for you to
do that.
|
|
