Sex with the Stars

Typically witless sex comedy. Plot? A magazine astrologer is put under pressure by his vulgar American publisher to bed women of each different star sign in order to spice up his flagging column. Fill in the blanks.

This film has shaped so many parts of my life, that I can't imagine anyone fielding negative comments about it. From the haunting melody of Pierre Bachelet's Emmanuelle-esque opening and end-credit song, to the splendidly delicious natural (un-enhanced) content, this film is eternally memorable. No advanced special-effects trickery here. (or surgical for that matter.) - just kismet. Not a day goes by where I don't revisit the imagery and happily hum or whistle that tune - and that's saying something, as I haven't viewed this film in over 20 years. Doesn't anyone appreciate a straightforward, trend-topical European astro-sexual romp anymore? The bath tub? The Rolls limo in the parking garage? The entire Zodiac? The Boss' wife??? - I guess you had to be there. And was that a Smith Galaxis he was typing on? I can understand the waning public opinion of Astrological veracity in the late 70's turning the subject matter into fodder for satire by physical production of this film, but the blend, tone and stamina of audio and visual impressions left by this piece mark it, in my mind, truly timeless. Movies are not merely meant to be viewed as pictures that move, but as pictures that move the viewer. .and so it goes for Sex With the Stars. MB

another british sex comedy that fails to deliver, its only saving grace being topless model susie sylvie. the acting is atrocious and jokes just fall flat.

"Sex With the Stars" is the most tedious softcore flick I've ever seen. It's poorly shot, dimly acted, confusingly scripted, and dull, dull, dull.

The set-up is something to do with a "naive young man" who writes an astrology column being made to have sex with women of every star sign by a fat, cigar chomping American editor, who is played by an actor named Thick Wilson. Thick. Wilson. If only the person who had come up with the stage name for that actor had written this movie as well.

The movie then shows the young man meeting various different women while pointless, negligible narration has him reeling off details about their star sign while bedding them. There's nothing creative or interesting about any of these encounters, and they are filmed and staged so badly your attention is never where it should be.

There is no excitement, not even an attempt at any eroticism, and the movie becomes a wholly uninvolving procession of breasts and pubic hair. You see much more of the unphotogenic male lead than you wanted to: he is gross and ratty and his hair is already thinning out.

The only notable encounter is when the main guy saves a woman from drowning, carries her to the change rooms and strips off her clothes. It looks more like rape than anything else.

Apparently the UK writers don't like this movie. I do, and did when I saw it on cable some 20 years ago. I wish a good copy would turn up on DVD. Maybe it wouldn't be so great now, but, I suspect that it would. Maybe it was my single status at the time that made it better. Wishing that I had such a "tough" assignment as this guy. It was meant to be a fun picture, and I think it was. As it's been noted, there no silicone specials here, just natural talent. I think that that helps a lot. Too many of the American made movie of this ilk wind up with a bunch of plastic bimbos bouncing around thinking that their enhanced assets are the sexiest things in the world, NOT. Certainly not a Masterpiece Theater production, but, if you try to appreciate the movie what for it's meant to be, a sex romp/comedy, then you should be able to enjoy it. If not, then tune into Masterpiece Theater.