jaybeebrad There are two reasons people might see this film.1.They are longtime fans of Charisma Carpenter. 2.They want some softcore porn.Chances are a lot of them are looking for both.This is nothing more than a cheaply made direct to video rip off of "50 Shades of Grey", what is known as a "Mockbuster" where producers rip off the plot and characters from a successful film and create a cheap fast version to profit from.Besides being terribly written, directed and acted, it's a sad fact that age 45 (at the time of filming) Ms. Carpenter's sexual wiles are not exactly holding up.The result is a middle aged woman trying to play the young sexpot, and it's somewhat uncomfortable to watch.I'm not sure what kind of age they were attempting to make her character, but since Daniel Baldwin plays her father and is only 10 years older than her in real life, that added an additional pathetic element to the whole debacle.If you want to see Charisma Carpenter topless, do a google image search and save yourself from enduring this dreck.

amyrourke56 So much Cinema is Psychotherapy ~ especially in America, where the puritan streak meets with capitalism every nanosecond, where the human stain of sexism and racism runs through every frame. Let's face it folks, this is a comic book/look at the zillions spent on promoting the utter dross that is 50 shades ( yes, they are doing 50 Shades 2 ~ the marketing masterpiece ).I needed a little light relief and as a big fan of Charisma Carpenter from the Buffy/Angel years, I was willing to spend $1.95 Australian ~ American cousins can 'do the math', to have a look at her as she is now. Cordelia was always a sexpot, so it makes sense for grown up 'Cordy' to be revisited.I laughed, did not take it seriously and was as pleased as punch when Supermichelle got to sock it to the villain of the piece. Some message board mentioned 'Venus in Furs' ~ an admirable compare & contrast study. If anyone is really interested ~ do a triple feature, in any order, of this title, 50 Shades & Roman Polanski's ' Venus in Fur'. Then write a short poem, thesis, review or what you will.

Eddie_weinbauer This is a lame attempt to make a low budget 50 shades of Grey.But all it does, is remind you of those god awful movies,those so called erotic thrillers, that came in the wake of basic instinct's success, but was really just glorified softcore porn. But the difference is those were made with younger former scream queens,B-C movie actresses who weren't afraid to go full frontal. Something charisma doesn't seem willing to do. Which would be fine,if she didn't accept scripts that would need full frontal for her role to work,or at get some attention. The producers seem to hope that Charismas tits are gonna save this movie,which they can't. the script is to boring and her character uninteresting. Who ever directed this should be shot,or go back to film school.When Charisma undresses,they focus on her face.And I mean REALLY focus on her face.They zoom so close you can see the wrinkles around the eyes. The story is lame and Charisma can't manage to show an emotion to anything that happens around here. Sadly her face seem to only have 2 expression, pleasure and anger.Those are the only two emotions she manage to express fully,with her face.I'm pretty sure her phone hasn't been ringing off the hook since she left Buffy and Angel,but this is just sad.

A_Different_Drummer IMDb readers of the present and future may well look at the low rating --2 -- and think that this reviewer is perhaps being harsh...? However, in fairness, I will note that, if you take the time to research the IMDb reviews of other productions where Jared Cohn has acted as both writer and director, you will discover even lower ratings than that number associated with his work.The story deals with the "older" daughter of a successful businessman who gets involved with a sexual partner who attempts to bring out aspects of her sexuality (BDSM) with which she, presumably, was not already familiar.Brought to you by the same team that gave you BIKINI SPRING BREAK (among others) and starring the irrepressible Daniel Baldwin (whom, one reviewer noted, seemed to be reading his lines off cue cards he had never seen before), the most interesting thing about the film is the casting of Charisma Carpenter in the lead.For those visiting from another planet, TV is the 90s was dominated by the emergence of a young auteur named Joss Whedon (yes, the same Joss Whedon who gave new life to the Marvel library in his Avengers I script).Whedon, by the end of that decade, had not one but two breakout hits on his hands, each handled by a different network -- (Buffy and Angel)-- and each prominently featured Capenter.In other words, you could not miss her even if you wanted to. And no one wanted to. She was perky, fun, gorgeous, and memorable.The prevailing view is that Carpenter's career since those days has been somewhat problematic, and an argument can be made that this effort is yet another attempt to recapture her glory days and reconnect with former fans.As for the production itself, it features the standard levels of quality that Cohn and his company, Asylum, are known for -- perfectly lit sets starring exceptionally good looking people in static (low movement) environments with lots of head and shoulders framing.Where the director wants the audience to really "get" that something important is happening on-screen, he will attempt to do this via a change in the lighting, as opposed to the more traditional ways (such as through the dialog or the acting).That technique, in real life, is just as effective as it sounds.Really and truly, for Carpenter fans only.