Vegas in Space (US 1991)

The Gist:

The Empress Nueva Gabor's girlimium gems have been stolen! Gems that are vital to the continued safety of Vegas in Space, capital of the planet Clitoris! Captain Dan Tracey and his crew are sent to discover the culprit, but as it is a women only world, they must first change their sex in order go undercover as showgirls from Earth to solve this mystery and save the planet. Not an easy task considering the number one suspect is Veneer, the Queen of Police. 

Comments:

As is probably clear from the plot description, this is a very camp movie. More specifically, a very low budget, day glow Barbarella aesthetic, drag queen, comedy homage to bad sci-fi B-movies. Apparently the movie has a reputation of being so bad you must absolutely watch it. Thing is, I don't think it is terrible. Rather it lives right on the edge of bizarre and great. 

From what I can tell, people look at the bright artificial colored fake fur covered sets, the wacky rambling over the top story, all the roles played by both men and women done up in drag, rude humor, the use of both color and black and white sequences, varying acting skills, the very basic idea of a planet of women who all act like mad drag queens instead of actual women, and especially the city of Vegas in Space itself,  a model consisting of a perfume bottle covered table with little plastic flying saucers and rocket ships on string waving above, as proof that the movie is a schlocky mess. 

I look at the same and see a very intentional point of view created by drag artists with the desire to perform and bring their dreams to life, shaped by the constraints of a very low budget. A budget low enough it took a couple years to film and even longer to finish the post production work, so that it is more of a product of an early 80's San Francisco performance art mind set than the 1991 release date would suggest. The time from filming to release was long enough that some of the cast died from AIDS related causes before it was finally screened. 

Despite my liking it and thinking it successful at what they were trying to do, I do admit it is a very strange beast of a movie, and not something everyone would enjoy. However, it's worth seeing if you like camp or drag or want a look at what drug fueled, sleep deprived drag artists would do in 1980's San Francisco when given access to a camera. 

Women:

All the women are played by both women and men, so regardless if we are talking about character or the actor playing the role, the answer is yes.

People of color:

Maybe? I'm not really sure. Many of the roles involve heavy, bright green or other loudly colored makeup, so it's not really clear.

Gratuitous nudity:

Not exactly, there are a couple of breasts on display, but appropriately enough given the movie they are are obviously fake. The intent seems to be not so much gratuitous as intentionally outrageous.  

• Director: Phillip R. Ford
• Writers: Philip R. Ford, Doris Fish
• Actors: Doris Fish, Miss X, Ramona Fischer, Lori Naslund, "Tippi"
• 85 min
• Color, and Black and White
• Note: The director has the story of the making of the movie as a one entry blog. It's an interesting read and includes lots of photos and videos.
• IMDB

Altitude Falling (U.S. 2010)

The Gist:

Against a backdrop of a near future dystopian America that implants its citizens with ID tracking chips, an older man meets a younger guy (with connections to his past) and they fall in love. 

Comments:

The idea of the loss of secrecy due to technology is topic in need of discussion, but in this movie it ends up being boring. Part of the problem is that for a movie being sold as a suspenseful science fiction flick there is very little suspense or action. It also gets bogged down in some of the stereotypes of low budget movies such as bad acting. The young gay guy is very painful to watch at times. 

There's also the fact that more focus is given to the romantic pairing between older guy and young gay then the world they live in. Although this focus may not be surprising given that cross generational romance seems to be a common theme in writer/director/lead actor Paul Bright's movies. 

Even if you have no issues with someone dating a barely legal person more than young enough to be his son, this particular relationship is still questionable because as the story explains older guy is romancing the estranged son of his best friend (whom he also lusted for back in college).  Instead of a testament that when it comes to love, age doesn't matter, the details make the relationship seem creepy. 

Romance aside the oppressive government plot is also strange. Apparently in a decade or so the United States becomes a capitalist / communist / fascist dictatorship, where a female president passes laws directly, forcing people to ride bikes and grow their own food in federally run community gardens. Dialogue makes it seem that all these contradictory adjectives are an un-ironic comment on the Obama presidency (because using hope as a campaign slogan was bad?). 

In short, this is a whole lot of words to say that the movie is "meh."

Women:

The young gay's mother and grandmother

People of color:

If there were any, I blinked and missed them

Gratuitous nudity:

Maybe? I saw none, but an actual real review of the movie mentioned nudity. I saw it online so I guess that version was edited.

• Director: Paul Bright
• Writer: Paul Bright
• Actors: Paul Bright, William Diamond
• 93 min
• Note: The title is mentioned in dialogue as being a bit of Orwellian government double speak. In this global warming disaster affected near future it's not the oceans that are rising, but rather mountains (altitudes) that are lowering. 
• IMDB

Horror in the Wind (U.S. 2008)

The Gist:

Two oddball scientists are attempting to become rich by creating a pest control "formula" that eliminates rat's sex drive. President Pat Robertson hears of the project and steals it to spray over the entire world as part of his war against premarital sex. Unfortunately the "formula" doesn't actually stop rats (and people) from having sex, it just changes your sexual orientation, threatening to turn the entire world gay. While all this "science" and "intrigue" is going on, the two oddball scientist's wives do a lot of nude yoga together. 

Comments with major and unimportant spoilers: 

The movie pretty much fulfills all the stereotypes of terrible low budget movies. Everything from acting to plot to technical issues and special effects is bad. Worse, it also fails at humor, so instead of the farce with comments about religion, homophobia, and politics that the premise sets it up to be, it's just boring. 

Also slow. There are so many montages going on. "We are doing science" montages, "we are fishing" montages, "the entire world is now gay and loving it and having sex but we aren't" montages. That last one counting as character development I guess, because despite having been turned gay and falling in love the two goofy scientist leads are moody and wishy washy about moving their bromance up to next level of actual sex even though everyone else in the world appears to be reveling in gay as the new norm. 

Put short, it's not good. 

Women: 

Several 

People of color:

Barely

Gratuitous nudity:

One quick partial male butt, and lots of female baldy parts during the female nude yoga scenes (because nothing says gay movie like female nudity?)

• Director: Max Mitchel
• Writer: Max Mitchel
• Actors: Perren Hedderson, Morse Bicknell, Courtney Bell, Jiji Hise
• 90 min
• IMDB