Malibu Hot Summer

Shot in 1974 but not released until 1986 the film can be mainly of interest to anyone because 19-year old Kevin Costner plays a small role as a ranch hand. Interesting thing is, he is actually the best thing about the movie -- he at least tries to act. He's rough around the edges but one can see that a couple years of acting lessons added to that laid-back "aw shucks ma'am" demeanor will make him the star he is today. The rest of the cast gives your typical low budget talent-free performances. Plot (if you can it that) centers around three uniquely untalented women trying to make it in la-la land. lots of t & a, tacky sets and costumes, bad cinematography, a cheesy script, and tuneless music.

I have seen Sizzle Beach on a DVD and gristly to say, the extra's Troma Studios put on the DVD are more fun than the movie itself. The movie is originally released as Malibu Hot Summer in '74 starring Kevin Costner playing one of his first roles. In this film he is playing a rancher that meets a couple of women who just arrived in L.A. He is showing them the way in the hard and quick city of Los Angeles. If you like Troma movies this is a must see. All the typical Troma aspects can be seen: bare cheasted ladies, a "pimpy" midget, some lesbian scenes, lots of topless swimming and on top some great music. If you are into that and don't mind the absence of acting Sizzle beach might be the predecessor of Boogie Nights.

Even if you love Troma, you might not fall in love with this movie. The charm of most Troma movies is that even though they're incredibly awful (artistic-wise), the filmmakers don't pretend they're making Shakespeare. "Sizzle Beach, U.S.A." often does take itself seriously, yet sporadically finds room for those quirky Troma elements. There's a scene where a naive, ditsy aspiring actress tries to get a job by sleeping with a morbidly obese man. He sees her naked body and says, "I see real potential in you." Pretty funny. But gags like that are sandwiched between badly played dramatic moments. The film almost plays out like a bad soap opera...with gratuitous female nudity. The nudity is practically the only saving grace of this "film," though it certainly shouldn't be anyone's sole reason to buy a copy of the DVD. I wasn't surprised when I watched an interview on the DVD, in which the film's director mentions that Kevin Costner tried to buy the rights to the movie, so that he can remove it from all stores and selling outlets. It's still amusing to see Costner in such a horrible flick. Anybody who thought "The Postman" was bad should probably check this movie out first. Though not quite the talented actor he is today, Costner probably gives the film's best performance. The rest of the cast put no emotion into their dialogue, and sound as if they're reading off cue cards. I can barely call this a film, because it's basically just a collection of scenes. It's neither character-driven, nor plot-driven. This is one of those movies I expect to see in the bargain bin, for about $4.99. The only minor compliment I can give is Costner does have a pretty substantial supporting role, so this wasn't one of those cases where a now-famous actor is placed on the DVD cover to increase sales, when he only has a small cameo. And on the bright side, it's a Troma DVD, so it has some cool Tromatic extras. (3 out of 10)

Sizzle Beach USA is one of those great little films that lets you peer into the time when an actor or actress that has made it, was putting their all into their performance. This is a true work of art with T&A to boot.

A fairly decent T and A flick that delivers plenty of nudity in it's runtime.Good looking girls too!There are better beach movies out there but fans of the genre would do well to check it out.Kevin Costners only in a few scenes although he's clearly the most natural actor in the film.IMDb states in "Trivia"that the film was shot in 1974 and released in 1986.I have a hard time believing this,a simple click through the cast list would seem to indicate a shooting date around '79 to '82 otherwise most of the cast would have done this in '74 then nothing else for 6 years before they all started acting again?The films not THAT bad...