A Flor Mortal

This is easily the stupidest movie in my collection, but Pamela Anderson is at the peak of her seductive powers in this film. It's worth seeing for her, and also if you want to give the fast forward and rewind functions on your VCR a workout. I'm not exactly sure what the film is about, but I don't really care either. She will never be this sexy again.

To be honest i was not expecting much from this movie.

However, This is a first rate adult thriller, that makes Basic Instinct look tame in comparison. Pamela Anderson has never looked as hot as this. OK so her acting is a bit poor. Well it was her first movie.

But who cares when you can feast your eyes on such a beautiful actress in all her glory. She features in many nude scenes during the running time, it truly steamed up my glasses. The storyline is first rate and the supporting cast are excellent. Chelsea Field and Steven Bauer work up the tension to a memorable climax. A Fantastic Erotic Thriller. 10 out of 10

This movie is like a poor mans "Basic Instinct", that tries to be an erotic thriller but just doesn't ever quite works out well as one. "Basic Instinct" inspired a lot of movies like this during the early '90's but none ever reached the same level of brilliance.

For a thriller it just isn't a solidly enough written one. Its story is quite predictable really and it's build on some unlikely plot lines and developments. The movie therefore also never gets tense to watch and its soft erotic elements also don't exactly help to make the movie any more exciting, despite the presence of Pamela Anderson at her prime.

Pamela Anderson had only just got fame for her "Baywatch" role at time she was starring in this movie. It's a serious acting attempt from her, in a more serious role and movie but luckily she soon discovered for herself that she just wasn't made for this sort of stuff. Now days he is mostly appearing in cameo comedy roles. None of the actors really impress to within this movie, which is more likely due to the quality of the script and the capacity of the director as well, who is mostly responsible for directing lots of Power Ranger episodes and movies. Every now and then he tries a serious directing attempt but he has yet to succeed really.

The movie is mostly being a dull and dragging one, which is due to its predictable script for most part. Also the visual look of the movie makes it look more like a made for TV movie but this is something more '90's movies suffer from.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This movie tries hard to ride on the coattails of Basic Instinct, and it almost succeeds, but the incompetent direction keeps it from a fun level of B-movie goodness. For an erotic thriller, it actually gets the erotic part right but lacks the rest.

The young Pamela Anderson looks great and her scenes are worth it but everything else is very dull. The plot is dumb, the dialogue is bad, and it might have all been amusing if the acting wasn't so dry. It's filmed like a typical boring made-for-TV production from the era but at least the sex scenes are good.

Even with the subpar story, this could have been a fun and silly b-movie romp if there was more effort on display. As it stands, there's just not enough it does right.

Regardless of one's personal feelings about the notorious Ms. Pamela Anderson, it would be foolish IMO to deny that until about 1996 she was an incredibly beautiful woman. Her face was comparable to Brigitte Bardot's, and her body was (or at least looked) more natural and well-proportioned. She has a couple of fairly hot sex scenes in this movie, however they are cut pretty short. "Snapdragon" as a whole seems to have many elements of a solid B-movie (including a female serial killer and Oriental mythology), but the execution is off-target: the pacing is stagnant, there are too many dull stretches in the middle, and the payoff isn't much of a surprise. Others have compared this film to "Basic Instinct", but it reminded me more of Drew Barrymore's "Doppelganger"; unless you are a hardcore Pamela Anderson fan, check out that one instead. (*1/2)