Not THAT boring, but not an Emmy winner either. It's basically the kind of film you'd expect to see on Cinemax at about 1 AM. I've never seen either of the main actresses in this film in anything else, which is somewhat disappointing. They're both EXTREMELY hot, and Kim Yates is quite a good actress as well.
8 Reviews
This only has value as softcore nostalgia
MBunge2 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Ah, the 1990s! The glory days of skinflicks before people could get the hard stuff with a click of a mouse button. Young actresses who don't know any better taking off their clothes with stars in their eyes. Sets that look like somebody's garage. Scripts that make almost as much sense reading them backwards as forwards. Direction that doesn't involve much more than keeping the girls' nipples in focus. Yes, those were the days and Teach Me Tonight is like a portal into softcore porno nostalgia.
Janie (Judy Thompson) is a lab researcher at some nondescript college. She's living with her grad student boyfriend (Rob Moses) when her old high school buddy Frankie (Kim Yates) blows into town. A loud exhibitionist who's willing to jump in the sack at the drop of her panties, Frankie spends a night on the couch in Janie and Michael's apartment, but not before offering herself as a one-third of a threeway. Janie finds out Michael is cheating on her, which leads to a rather lame attempt at revenge involving Michael's professor (John Logan) and results in Janie and Frankie having sex.
Then about a half hour into story, these filmmakers apparently realized they didn't have anything vaguely resembling a plot, so Michael winds up with a bullet in his head and Janie is left to figure out if it was Frankie or someone involved in Michael's drug dealing business, while a hard ass police detective (Jack Becker) thinks Janie's the one who did it. Being suspected of murder seems to turn Janie on, since her immediate reaction is to masturbate, and there's finally a drug addled threesome before Teach Me Tonight mercifully puts itself out of its misery.
Though only three women get naked in this thing, Judy Thompson and Kim Yates are very attractive with Cece Sinclair only slightly bringing up the rear. On average, there's a sex scene every 15 minutes, which is a bit slow for this particular genre but they heavily focus on the women with as little man ass on screen as possible. So if you were a teenage boy looking for "motivational" material in the late 90s, this film would have satisfied your requirements.
Beyond that, Teach Me Tonight is so terrible it will make you feel like your brain is leaking out of your ears. Jack Becker plays the traditional role of "only person in a skinflick who can act", with the rest of the cast combining to have as much talent as a head of lettuce. Director Rick Blaine's skill extends only to turning the camera on and then walking away. The one time he tries to utilize some camera movement, he manages to be more nausea inducing in 2 minutes than the entire Blair Witch Project. And I can only guess that writer David Keith Miller suffered some sort of serious head trauma before coming up with this screenplay because much of it seems to be the product of a brain that can no longer understand human behavior or appreciate causality.
Except for two pretty women, this film looks and sounds like crap. Unless you've permanently lost your internet connection, I can't imagine any reason why anyone would want or need to watch Teach Me Tonight.
Janie (Judy Thompson) is a lab researcher at some nondescript college. She's living with her grad student boyfriend (Rob Moses) when her old high school buddy Frankie (Kim Yates) blows into town. A loud exhibitionist who's willing to jump in the sack at the drop of her panties, Frankie spends a night on the couch in Janie and Michael's apartment, but not before offering herself as a one-third of a threeway. Janie finds out Michael is cheating on her, which leads to a rather lame attempt at revenge involving Michael's professor (John Logan) and results in Janie and Frankie having sex.
Then about a half hour into story, these filmmakers apparently realized they didn't have anything vaguely resembling a plot, so Michael winds up with a bullet in his head and Janie is left to figure out if it was Frankie or someone involved in Michael's drug dealing business, while a hard ass police detective (Jack Becker) thinks Janie's the one who did it. Being suspected of murder seems to turn Janie on, since her immediate reaction is to masturbate, and there's finally a drug addled threesome before Teach Me Tonight mercifully puts itself out of its misery.
Though only three women get naked in this thing, Judy Thompson and Kim Yates are very attractive with Cece Sinclair only slightly bringing up the rear. On average, there's a sex scene every 15 minutes, which is a bit slow for this particular genre but they heavily focus on the women with as little man ass on screen as possible. So if you were a teenage boy looking for "motivational" material in the late 90s, this film would have satisfied your requirements.
Beyond that, Teach Me Tonight is so terrible it will make you feel like your brain is leaking out of your ears. Jack Becker plays the traditional role of "only person in a skinflick who can act", with the rest of the cast combining to have as much talent as a head of lettuce. Director Rick Blaine's skill extends only to turning the camera on and then walking away. The one time he tries to utilize some camera movement, he manages to be more nausea inducing in 2 minutes than the entire Blair Witch Project. And I can only guess that writer David Keith Miller suffered some sort of serious head trauma before coming up with this screenplay because much of it seems to be the product of a brain that can no longer understand human behavior or appreciate causality.
Except for two pretty women, this film looks and sounds like crap. Unless you've permanently lost your internet connection, I can't imagine any reason why anyone would want or need to watch Teach Me Tonight.
How To Be A Movie Star Without Knowing How To Act.
rmax30482321 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Well, one thing I can say about this soft-core erotic movie is that I wasn't a bit disappointed. The reason I wasn't disappointed is that I was resigned ahead of time to watching an hour and a half of cinematic offal.
I don't know why I keep bothering to watch these things. Partly tempted by the tantalizing covers, I expect, but also because I keep hoping against hope that behind, or maybe under, those glossy curls, those preposterous bosoms, the bulging pecs, the phony moans, the eager simulations of coitus, there might be a decent movie that manages successfully to combine effective sex scenes with an interesting plot and some talented performers. Once in a while it happens, after all. Bertolucci's "The Dreamers," for instance. Not a masterpiece, no, but a respectable film whose merits can be argued.
There's nothing wrong with sex or nudity in a film, although it seems to drive some of us into apoplexy. Cripes, we put up with all kinds of gore on the screen. Arnold can wrench off someone's head and pour evil fluids down the neck cavity -- and do it with a wisecrack -- and we laugh and clap with glee. But -- Sex? OMG.
Sadly, though the sex in this movie isn't enough to make up for the almost symptotic lack of talent in front of and behind the camera. And that despite the attractive female lead, Judy Thompson, who looks like a second-tier Meg Tilly. She's really pretty and nicely assembled.
But who can concentrate on her when she sounds worse than some kid appearing in a high school play in Kearny, New Jersey? Or -- who knows -- maybe she's a genius at dramatics but was unable to overcome a banal script. Nobody could have done it justice.
Here's what it's like: a regular skin flick only with soft-core sexual episodes. There's just enough plot (about graduate students) to link the erotic scenes together.
I rewound it before it reached the end. Ho hum.
I don't know why I keep bothering to watch these things. Partly tempted by the tantalizing covers, I expect, but also because I keep hoping against hope that behind, or maybe under, those glossy curls, those preposterous bosoms, the bulging pecs, the phony moans, the eager simulations of coitus, there might be a decent movie that manages successfully to combine effective sex scenes with an interesting plot and some talented performers. Once in a while it happens, after all. Bertolucci's "The Dreamers," for instance. Not a masterpiece, no, but a respectable film whose merits can be argued.
There's nothing wrong with sex or nudity in a film, although it seems to drive some of us into apoplexy. Cripes, we put up with all kinds of gore on the screen. Arnold can wrench off someone's head and pour evil fluids down the neck cavity -- and do it with a wisecrack -- and we laugh and clap with glee. But -- Sex? OMG.
Sadly, though the sex in this movie isn't enough to make up for the almost symptotic lack of talent in front of and behind the camera. And that despite the attractive female lead, Judy Thompson, who looks like a second-tier Meg Tilly. She's really pretty and nicely assembled.
But who can concentrate on her when she sounds worse than some kid appearing in a high school play in Kearny, New Jersey? Or -- who knows -- maybe she's a genius at dramatics but was unable to overcome a banal script. Nobody could have done it justice.
Here's what it's like: a regular skin flick only with soft-core sexual episodes. There's just enough plot (about graduate students) to link the erotic scenes together.
I rewound it before it reached the end. Ho hum.
One of Kim Yates better movies
fsikes905724 March 2002
These movies require good sex to be effective and this one delivers the goods. This is the story about a woman(Judy Thompson) running into a wild friend played by Kim Yates. This is Judy Thomas first movie and she pulls off a pretty good job. Even if she is the star; it's basically Kim's movie. Her sex scenes steam up this slow plot that involves a murder mystery. It's worth a "7" for that and the attractive CeCe Tsou making a small, but distinctive mark.
Pharmaceutical Industry Expose from PLAYBOY Magazine
charlytully29 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
For the 39% of Playboy Magazine subscribers (e.g.--Janet Reno, Gore Vidal, Madeleine Albright) who pay monthly for the articles rather than the pictorials, this Playboy movie will be taken primarily as a cautionary tale about the corruption of the world pharmaceutical industry. The main character Janie (the artificially enhanced Judy Thompson) works in a pharmaceutical lab. Her lover's boss, Prof. Sterling Manville (John Logan), teaches a college sex appreciation course as a front to manufacture and distribute a new hallucinogenic date-rape drug which causes users hump their pillows even if their long-time lovers have just been murdered. Meanwhile, the so-called legal medicine men turn a blind eye while working cheek by jowl with presumed deviant sex slayers. A person could pick up much the same message from the other movie I saw today (Chris Bell's excellent doc BIGGER STRONGER FASTER: THE SIDE EFFECTS OF BEING American), but who do YOU want to see with few or any clothes on: the artificially enhanced Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Ms. Thompson?
Kim Yates does it all for you
olp-15-61438910 September 2012
To be clear on the first thing you need to know, the girl on the cover is not in the movie. Oh, well, Kim Yates is. Though Judy Thompson is the lead, the movie belongs to Kim. She is not the best actress you have ever heard get through her lines somehow, but she is without peer when it comes to softcore performance. She puts her flawless, slender figure through the paces like no one else can. As for Judy, if you like fake breasts (no way these are real) that are too big, she's your gal. There seems to be a story, but I forgot what it was. No matter. I don't watch these movies to be told a story. Watch it to see Kim, in the Unrated version, of course.
My overall rating of seven stars is for this as a softcore movie. Not comparing it to Citizen Kane.
My overall rating of seven stars is for this as a softcore movie. Not comparing it to Citizen Kane.
A great late night cable TV movie.
ithedork29 September 1999
After seeing Teach Me Tonight, I had to see it again. The first time I really wasn't sure what the movie was about or where it was going. The second time was about the same. To me it was more or less one of them B films that are just made to show people having sex. Now Judy Thompson played a very good part and some very sexy parts. The thing is, she does it with her boy friend. Then her girl friend. Then another friend and his wife. And then a cop. So I don't see where the name of this Movie comes from. I think it should have been called Sex Tonight.
Just what you would expect
tag_johnson17 November 2000
A nice little soft core movie that delivers exactly what you want out of it; some beautiful women and some excellent sex scenes. One thing, I cannot believe that this is the only thing the star Judy Thompson has ever done, she is just beautiful and very uninhibited!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
