The criticisms thrown at this British film have all missed the point - the filmmakers were trying to create a campy teen sex comedy in the banal and exploitative tradition of American 1980s cinema, but reverse the gender roles so that the girls are the protagonists and the boys do all of the nudity. It's no surprise that it took U.K. filmmakers to achieve this role reversal, largely because U.K. and other Euro films have never shied away from full male nudity, much unlike American filmmakers.
On this angle, the filmmakers have been absolutely successful. I attended a viewing of this last week in Toronto, and noted the hetero couple sitting in front of me - at the end of the film, the girl seemed slightly amused and aroused, while the boy seemed put out a bit - his facial expression seemed to resemble that of your average straight teenage girl after viewing Porky's or something like that. He seemed annoyed, and frustrated that all the nudity (and there was a lot of it for mainstream film standards) in the film was male.
Pathetic plot points aside, or bad acting, etc. this film achieves what it wanted to achieve - exploit the male gender in the context of a banal teen sex comedy featuring female protagonists. They weren't going for a logical plot or characters who would intrigue the audience. Who ever cared about the plots of the 1980s American teen sex comedies, anyway?
The filmmakers achieved their primary purpose with the teenage boy locker room scene, featuring several furtive shots of full frontal nudity. Not to mention, the numerous butt shots of star Rupert Penry-Jones, the dream boat created by the film's virtual reality machine, throughout the entire film.
