imdb-16001 I truly am at a loss as to why this movie has such a high rating. Campy is one thing. Bad is totally another. I thought I had seen all the horrible movies. I thought I had seen all the really bad ones. I was wrong. This film easily takes the spot in my worst movie category. The plot, the acting, the set...who am I kidding? There wasn't any! The soundtrack was horrible. The best way to watch this movie is with the director's commentary on. By far, it is funnier than the movie. He even says that the people in the film can't act. And that there was no script; the lines were all made up on the spot. Don't waste your money renting this one, but if you do, definitely turn on the commentary.

dbborroughs Underground film from the 1960's that plays better in the context of history rather than in present. The story has something to do with fleshapoids, robots in the future that go berserk and develop feelings. Made about the same time as Andy Warhol was turning out his early films and Andy Milligan was abandoning off Broadway for cinema screens this is an odd film that has been compared to the works of Kenneth Anger. I think the connection is tenuous at best since Anger had a little bit more going on then whats on screen here. (Frankly I think people who make the connection simply because Anger is a name people know.) Campy, I'm not sure intentionally so, the film isn't bad, but its not really good with the stupid motions of the fleshapoids making this the sort of film that will have you asking if they were serious. I'm guessing that the film played better in the basement cinemas where it was first shown. I decided to pick the film up because I had read about it over the years as being an "important" work in the history of underground film. Watching it some 45 years after it was filmed I was struck by how of the time it was, unfortunately its time has passed. Worth a look for people interested in the underground films of the 1960's. All others are advised to look elsewhere

weaselvulture In order to judge a campy film, you have to use an entirely different rubric than to judge something more... high-budget. It is obvious which genre this film falls into, and if you're using the right rubric, it's hilarity all around! This movie has everything: CHEAP sets, props, and costumes; garish colors; weird music; hilarious actors; a ridiculous plot, and finally, dialog that is only enhanced in campiness by actually being WRITTEN onto the film itself, rather than spoken.My only complaint really concerns just one scene, near the end of the movie, that seems to go on forever, along with really repetitive noises. But, I have a "thing" about repetitive noises, and it probably bothered me more than most. So if I can get past it, I bet you could, too! Anyway... this is possibly the most low-budget film I've ever seen. I am even taking into account Pink Flamingos (John Waters is my favorite director, if that gives you some insight as to how I judge movies), the budget of which was a mere $300.The bottom line is, if you aren't already a big fan of campy movies, then you're going to think this is just a bad movie- a really, really bad movie. But if you ARE such fan, I think you'll appreciate it- very, very much.

tmc-7 Basically there are only two movies you have to watch. One is Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane." The other is, of course, "Sins of the Fleshopoids." While Welles took around 2 1/2 hours and about a hundred scenes to define his genius, Kuchar did it in about 12 seconds in less than one. The shot in which mankind's ultimate utopia is described by an Adonis like man with wearing a futuristic Roman style abbreviated tunic (to show off his muscle-man physique) and 50's flat-top (think brown-haired counterpart to Kirk Douglas as Spartacus) lays on a divan surrounded by faux Greek columns contemplating the simple , understated beauty of a Clark Bar. "Sins of the Fleshopoids" in my mind, was better than "Citizen Kane," but hands down, everybody must agree that given the choice between watching it, and "Gone with the Wind," (an unwatchable movie - no joke here) you've got to go with the Clark Bar.The truth of the matter is that Kuchar knew exactly what he was making here, and did a pretty great job of winding some satire throughout his homage to the idiom.