Centrespread

...is his best, which doesn't say all that much. It's a mixture of futuristic science fiction woven into a corny love story that probably would have worked, but for the script, which contained so much constant nudity and sex that mainstream actors would have been highly unlikely to accept the roles. Add to that budget constraints - Groom, as producer of this one, would not have had access to the funds he has now (although the Australian Film Corporation gets a plug here) - and what we're left with is an Australian foray into very soft porn that has trouble finding a mainstream audience because of the acting quality. Just who the hell are Kylie Foster and Paul Trahair? A quick search on IMDb tells us that Trahair's only other role was as a young detective in SQUIZZY TAYLOR. Foster is much more travelled: she had character roles in the TV series PRISONER and SKYWAYS, and then found parts in KITTY AND THE BAGMAN, MELVIN and QUIGLEY DOWN UNDER - though how is a mystery, noting her acting "talent" in CENTRESPREAD. Indeed, while CENTRESPREAD could have become an Australian cinematic landmark akin to MAD MAX, the best parts remain the opening and closing themes, the former of which could easily have become a mainstream pop classic. Rating: 5/10

If this review were rating Centrespread on softcore nudity alone, it would be a 10/10 all the way. We have many gorgeous Australian girl shedding their togs for the camera, and besides a bit of unwelcome male flesh much later on, it's a barbecue of babes all the way! Yee-ha!

Alas, in terms of being an actually watchable motion picture, it's shortcomings are much more apparent, Whilst watching models rub their breasts whilst covered in body paint or engaging in faux-lesbian scenes together might be diverting for a while, the surrounding story... something about a photographer trying to find the 'next big discovery' or risk losing his job is so tedious, it would be better if it didn't exist at all.

Eventually, even the T&A becomes repetitive regardless of how many different setting and backdrops they decide to throw at us, and the end result is a pretty worthless thing who's only redeeming features you can find freely on the Internet today anyway.

P.S What exactly was the point in setting it in the future? Who knows? Who cares. 2/10

Music is pure porno music, so you know what you are gonna get.

In case you don't, you get real garbage served up on a poorly executed platter of bad directing, bad acting and a really bad story-line.

I tries to be artsy but the people involved in making it have no clue how to do that.

Instead you get a thoroughly boring piece of soft core porn.

It's hard to follow, because there really isnt and coherent plot. And the acting is remedial at best. Maybe even worse than that.

Instead of being titillated by the abundance of female nudity, i was completely bored out of my mind hoping for this to be over and done.

Who thought this movie would be a good idea?

Big strapping Sheilas cavort on sun-kissed beaches (and that's not all that get's kissed) in bright red lipstick & nails, body paint and little else in this garrulous Aussie exercise in Orwellian soft porn, eighties style (a scary prospect!) in which even the waitress in the local cafe looks as if she's auditioning for Derek Jarman. It's all played very straight and hard to figure out whether any of it's actually intended to be taken seriously or not; but you keep watching.

When I was younger I read a book about the history of cinematic Sci-Fi by the late John Brosnan. He spent some time discerning between "classical sci-fi" which deals with the implications of future technology or circumstances (such as 2001, Mad Max II or Bladerunner); "space opera" fare (which are "universal myth"-type films adapted to a sci-fi setting; Star Wars is the obvious example); and finally - films/story lines which could just as easily be set in the current day and have nothing to do at all with sci-fi beyond using its trappings as a marketing hook (Outland might be an example). Naturally an aficionado of sci-fi like Brosnan was contemptuous of the last category.

Some time later I saw Centrespread on late-night TV and I immediately thought "Wow! This is exactly what he was talking about in his book!" The premise of the plot as I understand it (from memory; this was about 1994) is that in the dystopian future, the powers-that-be published a porn mag to keep the rebellious masses docile; the protagonist is a photographer working for that publication. Beyond the costumes, sets and occasional references to the "badlands of Sector G", it's a soap opera about the photographer, his model and his boss. Other than that, it looks and sounds like it's set in late-'70s Adelaide and the surrounding environs like Maslin Beach (conveniently clothing-optional for the location shots); which as a native of the locale is fascinating to me. The only thing dystopian about it is the grim and shocking vision of cameras that were apparently going to get encumberingly larger rather than smart-phone sized. We dodged a bullet there, kids!

The stilted acting, uninspired dialogue and crummy effects are naturally awesome, but I'll second everybody else and suggest that it could have used more nudity. I'll also assume that the budget could have stretched further if they'd just set it in the Adelaide of the day rather than the vaguely Mad Max-ian future - the story wouldn't have suffered.

One of those fascinating films which purport to say something about the future they're set in but end up saying more about the past they were produced in. I'd watch it again - hopefully next time accompanied.