jadavix "Getting It On" takes a seedy, repugnant premise, and then fails to go anywhere even particularly smutty with it. It's a movie about a teenager who apparently has hidden cameras in multiple areas around town filming girls taking their clothes off and having sex... and then makes you wait more than half the length of the movie before it shows you a glimpse of bare breast.If this is confusing, it's nothing compared to the movie's "plot", which receives so little exposition that the movie makes little, if any, sense. I understood that the movie's protagonist has a flair for filming girls without them realising it, and also likes his next door neighbour. He has the typical goofy, obnoxious best friend who encourages him into emulating this behaviour when he is around the girl of his dreams, when he should just be "being himself".I didn't really understand the point of the voyeuristic sequences, when the main character watches, for example, a group of girls having a pillow fight he has apparently filmed. This is, I guess, what sets the movie apart from other teen T'n A flicks, but in the movie itself it amounts to nothing. It could have been sleazily exploited to show more skin, and let's face it, it probably should have been! This is why people watch these movies, after all. However there is so little nudity in the movie, and the kid's voyeurism adds nothing to the story, so what was the point of it?At one point it seems that his creepy hobby is going to save the day when his best friend is about to be sent to an all boys' school due to misbehaviour. The boys get a prostitute off the street, take her to a weird fancy dress party where both adults and teens are in attendance and the best friend dresses like a Klansman, and have the hooker seduce the kid's dad while on videotape.They then play the film on the TV set the dad and his wife are watching, so that the wife can see her husband's adultery. What was the point of this? Revenge? Blackmail would have seemed a more obvious option. The response of the couple is even more bizarre and inexplicable.Overall though, I enjoyed this movie. It's not as repugnant as it could have been, and I couldn't help but like the two main characters.

Woodyanders Handsome, but shy high school freshman Alex Carson (a solid and likable performance by Martin Yost) has a crush on new girl next door Sally Clark (an appealing portrayal by the fetching Heather Kennedy). Carson and his mischievous pal Nick (winningly played with delightful brash aplomb by Jeff Edmund) install hidden video cameras close to Sally's house so they can secretly tape Sally and her friends in action.While the basic premise sounds like your standard raunchy horny adolescent fare, writer/director William Olsen for the most part refreshingly eschews said expected lowbrow antics to place more of an emphasis on the engaging and believable teenage characters, with Alex's awkward pining for Sally providing a substantial amount of real heart and sweetness. However, Olsen still delivers a satisfying smattering of bare female skin and several amusing wacky moments while maintaining an affable good-natured and lighthearted tone throughout. Moreover, it's acted with zest by an enthusiastic cast, with especially praiseworthy contributions from Mark Alan Ferri as Nick's swaggering macho older brother Richard, Kathy Brickmeier as Richard's bubbly girlfriend Marilyn, C.K. Bibby as uptight killjoy principal Mr. White, and Caroline McDonald as Alex's perky mom. The right-on rock soundtrack hits the groovy spot. Austin McKinney's bright cinematography gives this picture an attractive sunny look as well as makes nifty occasional use of wipes and split screen. A nice little film.

writersinmotion This film was obviously made on a shoestring, because of the limited number of locations and no special effects. However, the charming actors, strong script with a real STORY for once, IE., sub-plot, character arcs, etc more than make up for any budget limitations. And for the skin freaks, there is no augmentation -- girls back then didn't need a boost in the chest to lift their self esteem. The film has no malice, which is not true for many teen comedies today. The extras on the DVD are great; a photo featurette; directors commentary, and the New York auditions round out a nostalgic look into 80's film-making that still holds up real well.

joeylinville Something has to be the worst movie ever. I believe this is a viable candidate. Humor that's not funny, sex that's not enticing, dialogue that's not coherent--the lack of inspiration makes one pause. Why on Earth would anyone make such a bad movie? I saw it in high school after being duped into it by friends. We all agreed to never tell we'd seen any of it, let alone sat through the entire thing. God! Did it suck! You should see just to see if I'm right about this or not.