Relação Indecente: A Sociedade Secreta

The first film of this series featured Drew Barrymore as Ivy, a teenage nymphet without any moral scruples using her physical attractions to destroy those who crossed her path. Released in 1992, it incorporated a significant amount of nudity. Two later films have featured Alyssa Milano and Jaime Pressly playing characters with different names but not dis-similar roles. All three films were essentially trashy melodramas, none achieved an IMDb viewer rating above the mid way point; but not because of poor acting, they all gave the career of their star a useful boost. Today however they are barely remembered, most filmgoers asked about one of them would probably scratch their head in bewilderment, and Insight were certainly taking a chance when they decided to make a fourth version of this story two years ago. Unfortunately it did not come off - like its predecessors this is a trashy melodrama with a transparent and overworked story spiced up with eye candy to increase its appeal; but not sure what audience it is really trying to attract. Ivy returns to this film in the guise of a University secret society - the Ivy Women's Society - which has established a dangerous influence on the administrative machinery of the University, and under the guidance of its current President (Azalea, played by Shawna Waldron) is prepared to go to any lengths, including violence if necessary, in order to maintain this. An unsophisticated country girl (Daisy, played by Miriam McDonald) who has decided to seek a University education following the death of her parents, improbably proves to be her most serious obstacle. Unfortunately this is only one of many very serious flaws in the story as presented. For example PI-4 includes a totally ludicrous and unnecessary bondage sequence showing new recruits to the "Secret" Society being tattooed during their initiation.

My TV version of PI-4 incorporated virtually no nudity but the Parent's Guide notes in this database just comprises the comment "nudity throughout". I understand the first release on television was a bowdlerised version, a number of spicy sequences intended to increase its appeal were added for a limited cinema release and later an even more spicy unrated DVD was released. Comments such as that above are of little help to parents in such circumstances. Ideally the Parent's Guide should relate to the cinema release, but once a film has made its rounds in the movie houses most prospective fresh viewers will only see either a heavily cut TV version or a spiced up DVD, probably designed for the young married viewers who rent or buy most DVD's today. These alternatives are as different as chalk from cheese. The TV version of PI-4 runs about 84m and the DVD 95m - for very different reasons neither is suitable for children's viewing. Similarly I have a PG14 version of "Wedding Crashers" which runs for 94 m, the R rated cinema version runs 119m and an unrated DVD 127m - over a third longer. This wide gulf in running times between TV versions and DVD versions for many films which are no longer regularly screened can nullify the value of IMDb Parent's Guide notes even though we all recognise they are of great importance to worried parents. Furthermore, when added sequences in DVD versions are designed to appeal to a different audience, they are often incompatible and spoil whatever appeal the original film had. The DVD of "Alice in Wonderland" (1975) included two different versions - comments on this database show that most viewers preferred the original shorter version, not because it was more suitable for children but because it ran more smoothly. If the Parent's Guide is to continue providing harassed parents with help they feel they can trust, IMDb needs to examine this problem. Often I have wanted to contribute to these guidance notes, but found this almost impracticable because multiple versions of the film exist. Perhaps IMDb could open a blog for further discussion - it would not be relevant here.

My advice is to stay away from either version of PI-4 - the only reason to watch is if you are interested in its two young stars. Here Shawna Waldron played a part which I believe enhanced her reputation as an actress. It reminded me of the part played by Sarah Michelle Geller in Cruel Intentions. Both had to display subtle glances and gestures showing freedom from moral scruples when with cronies, whilst appearing highly moral and demure with all other people - a difficult accomplishment. But, whilst Cruel Intentions was a very good film, Poison Ivy-4 only rates 2 stars.

After the death of her parents, Danielle "Daisy" Brooks (Miriam McDonald) sells the family farm and leaves behind her boyfriend to transfer to Beckshire College. The Ivy Society led by Azalea Berges (Shawna Waldron) dismisses the poor new student until Blake (Ryan Kennedy) takes an interest. The school is still haunted by a female student's mysterious death six months earlier. Magenta is Daisy's film student roommate. Andrew Graves is their political theory professor and Blake's father. Daisy starts working for Blake's mother dean Elisabeth Graves (Catherine Hicks). Azalea wants a prized internship but Daisy has the inside track.

This is most notable for the sexy Icebox. I don't know what else Shawna has done over the years but this is a real eye opening. Otherwise, there is nothing here. This is a weak soft core B-movie and it's not much of a thriller.

Sorry but this LMN waste is nothing but a porno movie and a bad one at that. At least in pornos you get to see more nudity and carrying on. In this we are subjected to these bunch of bimbos, overly made up and lip gloss up to here, go through the antics of being part of a sorority house that is bent in doing evil and murder. The lead gal, a hick from the sticks, is played with a vacant expression throughout the film. The evil one, in a push up bra and tons of eye makeup goes around flirting with all the male losers. In one movie, I'd love to see a character like this get so far in flirting and then be told the guy was gay and she was wasting her time. Just once. So we are forced to sit for two hours just to see them get their uppence. And it is never as exciting as all the bad deeds they do throughout the picture. Those so called sorority girls are all a bit long in the tooth to be playing young coeds. The guys look younger then they do. I wonder what the director was thinking of when he cast this. Boobs, I guess. Certainly not acting.

This movie had some potential in the script, and the actors had moments where they shined through, but for the most part this movie was a muddled mess.

The plot to this film seems like it was originally intended for teenage girls. If that had been the case, and the nudity and rather boring sex scenes had been excised I could understand a market for this type of film. Maybe if the plot had been sexed up a little, with more emphasis on the sexual politics and seduction I could understand it being a late night movie, but in the end the movie is a mess. It seems like soft core porn for middle school girls who enjoy staring at fake breasts.

The movie is rather dull, the story doesn't really kick in till the final five minutes, the direction is flat, and most of the actors seem like they are about to break out laughing during the scenes. The Poison Ivy series was never stellar film making, but at least the films knew their audience. This one is a confused, muddled mess that never decides if it wants to be a slightly dirty version of Mean Girls or a late night cable flick.

Skip it.

I thought this movie would be another follow-up to the erotic "Poison Ivy" franchise, but what we have in this very low budget film directed by Jason Hreno (an unknown director of shorts and small TV works), is more like a spin-off or an isolated job that took the attached itself to the franchise. And I say this because it really has nothing to do with the "Poison Ivy" films!

The plot centers on the sweet and naive Daisy, a country girl with a long-time boyfriend who, after losing her family, sells her land to study in the city. She manages to get into a good university and everything seems to be going smoothly, but things change quickly when she starts dating Blake, the son of the dean, who keeps an obscure connection with a secret clandestine female society for university girls that serves purposes and objectives beyond the wicked.

I think this succinct summary is enough to give us a clearer sense of everything this film is not: a "Poison Ivy" sequel. If these films were always about a young girl who uses sensuality and sex to get what she wants, here it just disappears. Daisy is everything that Ivy, Violet or even Lily never was: she is genuinely good. Wickedness is in the other girls in the secret society, but never in herself.

The cast is quite weak and it must not have been difficult for Miriam McDonald to stand out and assume the protagonism. She herself is not a brilliant actress, having excelled only in teen works, and the feeling that I have here is that she decided to follow the same path followed by other renowned teen stars like Drew Barrymore, Lindsay Lohan or Miley Cyrus: using sex and sensuality to detach from their childish image and have more adult works. Another actress who takes her clothes off in this film is Shawna Waldron, as the villain Azalea. Yes, she is what we have here in most similar to a "Poison Ivy" protagonist, but she lacks the protagonism, the film is never about her. The rest of the cast goes out completely: Ryan Kennedy has no presence and Andrea Whitburn rarely appears and does nothing special.

Being a film with a very low budget and with little money to spend, it is totally forgettable in the technical aspects, as it has everything you need without anything that stands out in the positive: uninteresting cinematography, monotonous scenarios and costumes, no effects, a "TV quality" look and a virtually absent soundtrack.