Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaAn ordinary sex-starved teenager and his friends start secretly video recording high school girls and their activity irks the community, as well as their principal.An ordinary sex-starved teenager and his friends start secretly video recording high school girls and their activity irks the community, as well as their principal.An ordinary sex-starved teenager and his friends start secretly video recording high school girls and their activity irks the community, as well as their principal.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
C.K. Bibby
- Mr. White
- (as Charles King Bibby)
Mark Alton Rose
- Ricky Schramm
- (as Mark Rose)
Recensioni in evidenza
Originally titled "American Voyeur" but released as "Getting It On", this North Carolina-lense teenage comedy nimbly pumps new life into the overdone high school hijinks genre. Though marketed as another raunchy "Porky's" followup, the William Olsen production is a well-acted, sweet and funny picture.
Filmmaker Olsen targets our consumerist and video-obsessed culture for some ribbing in this story of high school freshman Alex Carson (Martin Yost), with a crush on the girl next door, Sally (Heather Kennedy). Devising a video software business to earn money, Alex borrows his startup capital (at 15% interest) from his very businesslike dad, and with the help of his cutup classmate Nicholas (Jeff Edmond) takes the video equipment to record hidden camera footage of Heather and other pretty girts. When Nicholas is kicked out of school by mean principal White (Charles King Bibby), the heroes enlist he services of a friendly prostitute (Kim Saunders) to record footage of White in flagrante delicto.
What makes this material work is a fresh, enthusiastic cast, witty writing and direction by Olsen that bears no hint of malice. Though Alex's parents are caricatures, more interested in getting the latest satellite dish installed in the backyard than in their son's future, they are drawn as ingratiating characters, and even the practical joke directed against the principal turns out to benefit everyone, with no hard feelings. The script even includes a subplot reminiscent of the Matt Dillon-starrer "Tex", concerning Nicholas and his older brother Irving without parental supervision.
Young, attractive cast members match the teenage role requirements, though the pleasant lead player Martin Yost, an empathetic Timothy Hutton type, is of course older than the virginal 14-year-old in the script. Of special note is Bryan Elsom, very funny in a small role as a loquacious young Southern cab driver.
Tech credits for this modestly-budgeted effort are fine.
My review was written in August 1983 after a Times Square screening.
Filmmaker Olsen targets our consumerist and video-obsessed culture for some ribbing in this story of high school freshman Alex Carson (Martin Yost), with a crush on the girl next door, Sally (Heather Kennedy). Devising a video software business to earn money, Alex borrows his startup capital (at 15% interest) from his very businesslike dad, and with the help of his cutup classmate Nicholas (Jeff Edmond) takes the video equipment to record hidden camera footage of Heather and other pretty girts. When Nicholas is kicked out of school by mean principal White (Charles King Bibby), the heroes enlist he services of a friendly prostitute (Kim Saunders) to record footage of White in flagrante delicto.
What makes this material work is a fresh, enthusiastic cast, witty writing and direction by Olsen that bears no hint of malice. Though Alex's parents are caricatures, more interested in getting the latest satellite dish installed in the backyard than in their son's future, they are drawn as ingratiating characters, and even the practical joke directed against the principal turns out to benefit everyone, with no hard feelings. The script even includes a subplot reminiscent of the Matt Dillon-starrer "Tex", concerning Nicholas and his older brother Irving without parental supervision.
Young, attractive cast members match the teenage role requirements, though the pleasant lead player Martin Yost, an empathetic Timothy Hutton type, is of course older than the virginal 14-year-old in the script. Of special note is Bryan Elsom, very funny in a small role as a loquacious young Southern cab driver.
Tech credits for this modestly-budgeted effort are fine.
My review was written in August 1983 after a Times Square screening.
I recently watched Getting It On (1983) on Tubi. The story follows a high school peeping Tom and virgin who stumbles upon video equipment, taking his obsession to the next level. Will his new hobby deepen his fixation, or will it unexpectedly lead him to love?
Written and directed by William Olsen (Southern Belles), the film stars Terry Loughlin (Out of Time), Martin Yost, Heather Kennedy (Leprechaun), and Jeffrey Edmond (Out of the Black & Blue).
This is a by-the-numbers 80s sex comedy in the vein of Porky's, Animal House, and Hardbodies, but without the charm or impact. Everything about it is mediocre at best. While there's the expected nudity, the storyline feels like an excuse to make a movie rather than something with any real substance. The acting is average, the dialogue is uninspired, and the coming-of-age elements are watered down. There's no standout scene that makes it worth watching.
In conclusion, Getting It On is a forgettable 80s sex comedy with far better options available. I'd rate it a 3/10 and recommend skipping it.
Written and directed by William Olsen (Southern Belles), the film stars Terry Loughlin (Out of Time), Martin Yost, Heather Kennedy (Leprechaun), and Jeffrey Edmond (Out of the Black & Blue).
This is a by-the-numbers 80s sex comedy in the vein of Porky's, Animal House, and Hardbodies, but without the charm or impact. Everything about it is mediocre at best. While there's the expected nudity, the storyline feels like an excuse to make a movie rather than something with any real substance. The acting is average, the dialogue is uninspired, and the coming-of-age elements are watered down. There's no standout scene that makes it worth watching.
In conclusion, Getting It On is a forgettable 80s sex comedy with far better options available. I'd rate it a 3/10 and recommend skipping it.
GETTING IT ON bills itself as a typical promiscuous sex comedy and fails miserably. It is a painfully amateur production with a cast of no-names that tend to make a viewer cringe every time they open their mouths. The cast is lead by Martin Yost, who plays Alex, a teen-age Peeping Tom who decides to turn his perverted pastime into a money-making scheme. His father blindly agrees to give his son the $4000 to start a security surveillance business, which Alex can then use as an excuse to spy on other people, presumably "in the act". The father is unbelievably naive. It would have helped if the father was more suspicious of what his son was doing with all this expensive equipment. As for the "peep" sequences, they are far and few in the film and lack imagination for what the film is trying to advertise. No new ground is broken here.
There is no drive to the film. It is dull and the actors just seem to be going through the motions. That and the director tries to use two different sequences in which an actor pulls a gun on someone else as a surprise comedic effect, which is a lousy attempt at cheap laughs. The film weighs in at about 90 minutes, and by 90 minutes it's too long! Don't bother with this one. Try PORKY'S or MISCHIEF instead.
There is no drive to the film. It is dull and the actors just seem to be going through the motions. That and the director tries to use two different sequences in which an actor pulls a gun on someone else as a surprise comedic effect, which is a lousy attempt at cheap laughs. The film weighs in at about 90 minutes, and by 90 minutes it's too long! Don't bother with this one. Try PORKY'S or MISCHIEF instead.
"Getting It On" takes a seedy, repugnant premise, and then fails to go anywhere even particularly smutty with it. It's a movie about a teenager who apparently has hidden cameras in multiple areas around town filming girls taking their clothes off and having sex... and then makes you wait more than half the length of the movie before it shows you a glimpse of bare breast.
If this is confusing, it's nothing compared to the movie's "plot", which receives so little exposition that the movie makes little, if any, sense. I understood that the movie's protagonist has a flair for filming girls without them realising it, and also likes his next door neighbour. He has the typical goofy, obnoxious best friend who encourages him into emulating this behaviour when he is around the girl of his dreams, when he should just be "being himself".
I didn't really understand the point of the voyeuristic sequences, when the main character watches, for example, a group of girls having a pillow fight he has apparently filmed. This is, I guess, what sets the movie apart from other teen T'n A flicks, but in the movie itself it amounts to nothing. It could have been sleazily exploited to show more skin, and let's face it, it probably should have been! This is why people watch these movies, after all. However there is so little nudity in the movie, and the kid's voyeurism adds nothing to the story, so what was the point of it?
At one point it seems that his creepy hobby is going to save the day when his best friend is about to be sent to an all boys' school due to misbehaviour. The boys get a prostitute off the street, take her to a weird fancy dress party where both adults and teens are in attendance and the best friend dresses like a Klansman, and have the hooker seduce the kid's dad while on videotape.
They then play the film on the TV set the dad and his wife are watching, so that the wife can see her husband's adultery. What was the point of this? Revenge? Blackmail would have seemed a more obvious option. The response of the couple is even more bizarre and inexplicable.
Overall though, I enjoyed this movie. It's not as repugnant as it could have been, and I couldn't help but like the two main characters.
If this is confusing, it's nothing compared to the movie's "plot", which receives so little exposition that the movie makes little, if any, sense. I understood that the movie's protagonist has a flair for filming girls without them realising it, and also likes his next door neighbour. He has the typical goofy, obnoxious best friend who encourages him into emulating this behaviour when he is around the girl of his dreams, when he should just be "being himself".
I didn't really understand the point of the voyeuristic sequences, when the main character watches, for example, a group of girls having a pillow fight he has apparently filmed. This is, I guess, what sets the movie apart from other teen T'n A flicks, but in the movie itself it amounts to nothing. It could have been sleazily exploited to show more skin, and let's face it, it probably should have been! This is why people watch these movies, after all. However there is so little nudity in the movie, and the kid's voyeurism adds nothing to the story, so what was the point of it?
At one point it seems that his creepy hobby is going to save the day when his best friend is about to be sent to an all boys' school due to misbehaviour. The boys get a prostitute off the street, take her to a weird fancy dress party where both adults and teens are in attendance and the best friend dresses like a Klansman, and have the hooker seduce the kid's dad while on videotape.
They then play the film on the TV set the dad and his wife are watching, so that the wife can see her husband's adultery. What was the point of this? Revenge? Blackmail would have seemed a more obvious option. The response of the couple is even more bizarre and inexplicable.
Overall though, I enjoyed this movie. It's not as repugnant as it could have been, and I couldn't help but like the two main characters.
Wow is this a bad film,even by T&A standards. Other reviews have said it well...Not funny at all,creepy/sleazy story (this coming from a fan of R rated teen sex comedies),bland acting and ALMOST NO NUDITY. To make things even worse the film is shot poorly and the print is very dark and flat,i'm sure at least partly due to next to zero budget.
Who came up with the brilliant idea to make a T&A comedy about a guy secretly video taping women undressing,and then make it not funny with barely any nudity!?
I am telling you as a T&A connoisseur-avoid this movie at all costs,its a complete waste and there is nothing to see here.The DVD cover is the only thing good about Getting It On.
Who came up with the brilliant idea to make a T&A comedy about a guy secretly video taping women undressing,and then make it not funny with barely any nudity!?
I am telling you as a T&A connoisseur-avoid this movie at all costs,its a complete waste and there is nothing to see here.The DVD cover is the only thing good about Getting It On.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe four main cast members were cast out of New York.
- BlooperBoom microphone shadow visible on wall when the boys are watching the videotape in a room at school.
- Curiosità sui creditiBarking Dog ......... Probably The Ballingers'
- ConnessioniFeatured in Indie Sex: Teens (2007)
- Colonne sonoreForever More
(Theme from American Voyeur)
by Carol Veto
Courtesy of Landslide Records, Inc.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Getting It On?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 220.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 975.414 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 975.414 USD
- 21 ago 1983
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 975.414 USD
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti