Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (September 14, 2014)
Fans of The Simpsons will remember a Season Seven episode in which Bart and his friends acquire fake IDs. Among other activities, they use these to see an “R”-rated movie and choose Naked Lunch. After this screening, Nelson complains, “I can think of at least two things wrong with that title.”
Nelson could’ve made that same comment about 1995’s Live Nude Girls. The title promised a bawdy comedy with plenty of skin, whereas the end result delivered a women’s movie in the Sex in the City vein.
The phrase gets a new shot to live up to expectations via 2014’s Live Nude Girls, a film totally unrelated to the 1995 effort. Set in 1985, Shane (Mike Hatton) inherits his uncle’s strip joint. Along with deadbeat pal Tommy (Har Mar Superstar), he heads to Los Angeles to take over its operation.
Once Shane arrives, he discovers drugged-up manager Harry (Dave Foley) and a club with all sorts of trouble. A former Wall Street whiz kid, Shane attempts to rehabilitate the seedy club and make it a successful destination.
I admit I gave Girls a look partially because of the “nude” in the title. However, I didn’t view it solely due to the skin factor; with some decent talent involved, I hoped it’d provide an amusing little comedy.
Alas, Girls flops in every way possible. It doesn’t even succeed in terms of nudity. We get occasional topless shots, but given the movie’s reliance on porn stars with absurd fake boobs, these seem less than stimulating.
Beyond the lack of interesting nudity, Girls fails in virtually every other way. Painfully amateurish, the movie displays next to no redeeming qualities. The only minor positive comes from Foley, as he almost manages some humor from his role. I’d assume he improvised most of his lines, as he creates material that shows signs of life.
Everything else flops miserably. The movie doesn’t really bother with a plot; sure, it features plot-like elements, but it usually feels like a conglomeration of comedic escapades around which a loose story got built.
That might not be so bad if the quality of those tidbits satisfied. They don’t, as we don’t find much that will provoke a smile, much less actual laughs. Most of the actors show little talent, and even those with real skill get left out in the cold by the thin, lifeless script.
It doesn’t help that the project looks like it cost 27 cents to shoot. The movie comes with a cheap, tacky feel that one might think is intentional to reflect the seedy strip joint setting. I don’t believe this is the case, though; I think Girls is just a movie shot with little budget and less talent.
Even with low expectations, Girls disappoints. Ugly, stupid and pointless, it becomes a waste of 99 minutes.