This project was released 16 years ago, and I am the first person to ever review it here on IMDB.
I feel bad writing really negative movie reviews. I mean, no one begins a film project like this, intending to fail so miserably. But, I was thinkin'... maybe the purpose wasn't actually to make a sexy and believable soft-core film...
I've lived and worked in Hollywood. I have studied film. I also have a degree in Psychology. I think I have a pretty good idea as to why 'Shameless Desire' (2007) was created, and why it turned out so bad.
(Disclaimer: of course, everything I am about to write is purely hypothetical and satiristic...)
I think someone wanted to "get close" to one of those actresses. I think that person had some money, and I think you can probably find their name somewhere in the credits. I think this 'mystery investor/producer' commissioned a cheap, yet legitimate script. I think older actors (and possibly desperate actors) were intentionally chosen to prevent too much actual chemistry on the set. I think some of the male actors and production staff were friends of this investor, and probably felt indebted for being given the opportunity to be included in this awful project. Whichever actress was the 'object of infatuation' was probably featured in multiple sex scenes, and probably has a prominent speaking role in the project. In the original script, she was probably written to have one sex scene, but as production continued, the investor would have the script edited to add more sex scenes and nudity that featured their favorite actress. Those particular sex scenes were probably over-directed, because the actual purpose was not to capture great acting, but to gauge how much of her sexuality this actress was willing to trade for this role and paycheck.
So, in a situation like this, we are left to wonder... when production was completed and everyone moved on with their lives, did that investor ultimately get what they wanted?
This is a terrible movie, but it may have turned out to be everything that it was originally intended to be.
RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:
Acting: 0/1; ( Yes, 0. The dialog was unnatural, and most of the sex looked fake. Seriously, you can't fake sex better than this?);
Casting: 0/1; (None of these people can act, and I question whether some can read. Visually, the women are attractive, but most seemed a little older than early 20's grad-school students. The men, however, were all in their mid-30's to late 40's. Since acting ability wasn't a prerequisite, the least they could have done was cast age-appropriate bad actors. Take a look at the credits - full of pseudonyms and fake names. This movie is a joke.);
Directing: 0/1; (A note to all directors of sex scenes: If a man is attempting to provide oral pleasure to a woman, there cannot be 11 inches of space and light between the man's face and the woman's body. This was an issue in multiple scenes. Also, the order with which the fake sexual positions were performed was often the same. Simply terrible directing... Take your camera, your awful acting crew, and your "Go-Go-Gadget" tongue fetish, and get the **** off my television screen.);
Story: 0.5/1; (They tried to tell a story that would tie the scenes together. I appreciate the effort.);
Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1;
Total Base Score = 1
Modifiers (+ or -):
Standout Performances: -6 or so... Ok, that's not fair... -1, I guess. (They all stand out. Each one we encounter seems a little worse than the previous.);
Believability/Consistency: -1 (No.);
Quotability: +1 (Yes, it is quotable, in that way that really bad movies are always quotable. This movie is so bad that it might be fun in a party or 'group-viewing' situation. However, It would need to be a very open-minded group of people, and would probably require a lot of alcohol.);
Extraordinary Actor Chemistry: 0 (It's amazing how there can be so little sexual chemistry in a movie with so much fake sex.);
Gratuitous Female Nudity: +1
Exceptionally Sexy: +0.5 (There was a ton of nudity, but it was so poorly acted and filmed that it doesn't feel very sexy.);
Distractingly Poor Editing: -0.5 (Again, the space between the actors in intimate scenes. Also, bad and loud music and some cheesy digital post-production effects.);
Editing-Too Long: -0.5 (Should have been cut to about an hour.);
Total RealReview Rating: 0.5 (generously rounded up to 1 for IMDB)
I feel bad writing really negative movie reviews. I mean, no one begins a film project like this, intending to fail so miserably. But, I was thinkin'... maybe the purpose wasn't actually to make a sexy and believable soft-core film...
I've lived and worked in Hollywood. I have studied film. I also have a degree in Psychology. I think I have a pretty good idea as to why 'Shameless Desire' (2007) was created, and why it turned out so bad.
(Disclaimer: of course, everything I am about to write is purely hypothetical and satiristic...)
I think someone wanted to "get close" to one of those actresses. I think that person had some money, and I think you can probably find their name somewhere in the credits. I think this 'mystery investor/producer' commissioned a cheap, yet legitimate script. I think older actors (and possibly desperate actors) were intentionally chosen to prevent too much actual chemistry on the set. I think some of the male actors and production staff were friends of this investor, and probably felt indebted for being given the opportunity to be included in this awful project. Whichever actress was the 'object of infatuation' was probably featured in multiple sex scenes, and probably has a prominent speaking role in the project. In the original script, she was probably written to have one sex scene, but as production continued, the investor would have the script edited to add more sex scenes and nudity that featured their favorite actress. Those particular sex scenes were probably over-directed, because the actual purpose was not to capture great acting, but to gauge how much of her sexuality this actress was willing to trade for this role and paycheck.
So, in a situation like this, we are left to wonder... when production was completed and everyone moved on with their lives, did that investor ultimately get what they wanted?
This is a terrible movie, but it may have turned out to be everything that it was originally intended to be.
RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria:
Acting: 0/1; ( Yes, 0. The dialog was unnatural, and most of the sex looked fake. Seriously, you can't fake sex better than this?);
Casting: 0/1; (None of these people can act, and I question whether some can read. Visually, the women are attractive, but most seemed a little older than early 20's grad-school students. The men, however, were all in their mid-30's to late 40's. Since acting ability wasn't a prerequisite, the least they could have done was cast age-appropriate bad actors. Take a look at the credits - full of pseudonyms and fake names. This movie is a joke.);
Directing: 0/1; (A note to all directors of sex scenes: If a man is attempting to provide oral pleasure to a woman, there cannot be 11 inches of space and light between the man's face and the woman's body. This was an issue in multiple scenes. Also, the order with which the fake sexual positions were performed was often the same. Simply terrible directing... Take your camera, your awful acting crew, and your "Go-Go-Gadget" tongue fetish, and get the **** off my television screen.);
Story: 0.5/1; (They tried to tell a story that would tie the scenes together. I appreciate the effort.);
Writing/Screenplay: 0.5/1;
Total Base Score = 1
Modifiers (+ or -):
Standout Performances: -6 or so... Ok, that's not fair... -1, I guess. (They all stand out. Each one we encounter seems a little worse than the previous.);
Believability/Consistency: -1 (No.);
Quotability: +1 (Yes, it is quotable, in that way that really bad movies are always quotable. This movie is so bad that it might be fun in a party or 'group-viewing' situation. However, It would need to be a very open-minded group of people, and would probably require a lot of alcohol.);
Extraordinary Actor Chemistry: 0 (It's amazing how there can be so little sexual chemistry in a movie with so much fake sex.);
Gratuitous Female Nudity: +1
Exceptionally Sexy: +0.5 (There was a ton of nudity, but it was so poorly acted and filmed that it doesn't feel very sexy.);
Distractingly Poor Editing: -0.5 (Again, the space between the actors in intimate scenes. Also, bad and loud music and some cheesy digital post-production effects.);
Editing-Too Long: -0.5 (Should have been cut to about an hour.);
Total RealReview Rating: 0.5 (generously rounded up to 1 for IMDB)
