Crappy film

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

I have liked erotic thrillers for some time so when I discovered that this movie had been released in the UK under the title Weekend In Vegas, I decided to give it a try. I have also seen the US Unrated VHS release which differs in a few minor details.The VHS box mentions "indecent proposal" in its tag line so it would seem that any similarity between this movie and Indecent Proposal is purely intentional. A young married couple, Jed and Sally Willis (Tim Abell and Gabriella Hall) come to Las Vegas and lose a lot of money. Sherry Landis (Tane McClure) who is now playing Robert Redford's character offers to waive the account for a night of passion with Jed but the deal is not as obvious as it looks.There are subplots in this movie which are not explored fully. Flashbacks tell us that Jed and Sherry have a history together but this is not expanded. Who is the shadowy Stan (Peter Spellos) and what is his relationship with Sherry? There is a final twist but a lot is left unexplained.The acting is about par for the course. Tane McClure's performance only picks up when she and Tim Abell get together. Gabriella Hall is more convincing and of course she looks good with or without her clothes. A mention should go to Ashley Bates who has a minor role but her brief time on screen shows that as well as looking good there is some good acting talent.The minor differences mentioned above: the sex scenes in Weekend In Vegas are shorter and one is slow motion, and a breakfast scene at the Willis home is omitted from the US VHS.This is not the worst movie of its kind that I have seen but neither is it one of the best so a rating of 5 stars seems fair.

I bought this film on DVD from the pound shop for, yes, one WHOLE English pound. I was drawn into making the purchase due to the pictures of naked women on the back and thought the film would be good for a laugh with my mates. I was right. "Sexual Roulette" makes the film sounds rather intriguing, but the version I bought was under the alternate title "weekend in Vegas" which is I feel rather dull in comparison, but for a pound I wasn't going to complain. The film itself contains some awful performances from the actors and actresses involved, the best among them is probably the Michael Douglas-esqe (well he looks a bit like him here) lead character of Jed played by Tim Abell, who goes from angry, to horny, to angry/horny all within a few moments. The plot is a bit "indecent proposal" type and has plenty of poorly filmed sex scenes, but the most annoying thing is that the whole film is just clogged up with pointless shots of Las Vegas, the same ones repeated over and over again!! it seems to me like they finished the film and it only ended up at around 40 minutes long so they just got some aerial shots of the strip to fill the gaps. There is some far fetched storyline about debt and some people get killed but this is just a low budget film which is good for a laugh at its expense. I recommend this film be watched whilst drunk. I think there a load of copies left at the pound shop....

I make a minor hobby out of finding bad films that are based on clever ideas. Oddly, soft core has many of these. I suppose it is because the genre supports many folks who have talent and are "just waiting." Gary Graver is an interesting case, someone who worked with Orson Welles when he really was trying to do something cool. So cool in fact it was probably impossible and certainly beyond what an audience could read anyway.Here we have the standards: fake sex, fake boobs, fake acting and all. But we have a character that looks like Orson. And we have a Wellesian construction: a fabricated circumstance for amusement about a fabricated circumstance for amusement. Both are combined with caprice. The Welles character is the driver of events but in a twist we discover he really works for the viewer-voyeur. And then, and then, in the final analysis we have the result as an idea for a film, presumably the film we see. And around we go.I wish I could say that the cinematography was as intelligently rooted. But we do have some competent conscious-shifting: a gravel-sweep to the right but with an annoying sound rather like canvas bags pushed on sandy concrete.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

As standard direct-to-video erotica goes, this film isn't bad, but remember, these films aren't about the plot or the acting, but about the flesh. Let's face it, if you're truly looking for a good movie, then you KNOW from the title that this isn't likely to be the answer. So a movie like this comes down to what you think of the appearance of the female leads (sexist, but true). For me, Tane McClure looked old and tired and plastic, just like she always does. But Gabriella Hall made the movie bearable, for she is simply drop-dead gorgeous, with a stunning body and a face to match. I'd apologize for the superficial review, but that's what these movies are all about. They're all about liking what you see, since the writing is rarely good enough for you to like what you hear.