Deviant Obsession (2002 Video) User Reviews

It's not bad....lots of moaning helps boost "Sex" grade...B-

[Smooth B · 3 January 2003]

These films aren't too imaginative with the titles, are they? This is the umpteenth film I've seen with some combination of the words "obsession", "passion", or "desire" in the title. Too many to count. Oh well, this is just me ranting, let's get to the story.

L.A. attorney Mike Hathaway seems to have it all--a successful practice, a trustworthy lawfirm partner, a beautiful wife at home--and a girlfriend on the side, a fellow attorney played by Brick Randall (weird name, cute girl). During one of his sexual escapades with his girlfriend, some photos were taken. These photos eventually make the rounds back to his wife Evelyn (Gabriella Hall in a pseudo-cameo role, she was only in one scene). Obviously, Evelyn kicks him out and he ends up at a strip club to drink his problems away. In walks a mysterious woman who wishes to keep things anonymous, and Mike goes off to bang the mystery lady in a cheap motel nearby. Be sure to notice her entrance; she's talking to someone on a cell phone about Mike, giving away that she was there for a reason. The next morning, the woman is gone, and Mike returns to his house to find his wife dead! I guess the story begins here....finally.

There were three witnesses that saw Mike with the mystery lady (a stripper, her boyfriend and the cheap motel desk clerk), but suddenly they have selective amnesia and can't remember seeing him with her. Mike's alibi, "I was having sex with a woman at the time, but I don't know her name" seems pretty flimsy. Since these three people are the only ones who can vouch for his presence at places other than the murder scene, Mike is charged with Evelyn's murder. It's quite obvious these people were in on it, so how can this be proved?

The pretty female attorney has an idea. She'll go undercover as a stripper at the club Mike went to in order to get close to the stripper-witness and her boyfriend, a bartender at the club. Of course, this involves her getting naked frequently. Oh joy!!! Her idea is very similar to Flower's idea in "Deviant Desires", but I guess we can overlook it this one time.

The rest of the movie is a cakewalk from here. Eventually the truth comes out and the mastermind is revealed.

*SPOILER ALERT*



Mike's partner was behind it all. I know this comes as a shock to most of you. I say this sarcastically because it was that obvious.



*CONTINUE READING*

This movie does have some recycled plot elements in it and some bad acting by the male actors. The women involved were plucked right out of hardcore porn, which excuses their lack of acting ability and explains their frequent moaning during the sex scenes. I had to turn down the volume....they were just that loud. I just love that realism! Thankfully, like most Skinemax movies, you're in and out in about 90 minutes. A watchable film, not too bad and somewhat better than average.

Women: B- (It would be a C+, but Gabriella's presence for one scene boosts the grade slightly. Granted, she's not naked, but it's Gabriella Hall, folks. Brick Randall is built like a brickhouse, pun very much intended.)

Sex: B+ (Moaning that's not canned into the scene is a plus. These girls moaned like there was no tomorrow. Too much side-to-side action, though.)

Story: D+ (The "mystery" was like the one in "Sinful Temptations"--a bit too obvious.)

Overall: B- (It's riding the fence between C+ and B-, but the extra moaning and a glimpse of Gabriella pushed it over the top.)

'B', no a 'C', no, a 'D' Movie...

[whynot2 · 1/10 · 17 April 2007]

I'm a nice guy, and I like to think of myself as genre-tolerant. And, I guess by that, I mean I try to consider a movie in the context of the genre that it resides in. If nothing else, that saves me from feeling like I should be saying really nasty things about people or films, which I don't like doing.

The plot in this one was patently obvious, the production values very low and sets, uhm, simplistic. The acting rose into "good for a high school play" territory from time to time. My feeling was this was filmed in a day -- please tell me it was.

Worst of all, the sex , while reasonably plentiful, was fairly mundane, hampered by, at least in my copy, a "sound-over" that was inconsistent with the action (climatic moans and shrieks while lying on a bed undoing a bra???). There was definitely no "edge" to it at all--nothing distinguishing or interesting, and with surprisingly quick cuts.

My vote is a "1" then, with the following summary statement: would have been better if the filler stripper material at the club was expanded, and the rest of the movie condensed.

Seriously?!?!

[MBunge · 1/10 · 14 November 2011]

Wow. Just when you think you've seen all that crap cinema has to offer, along comes something like Deviant Obsession to show you things can be worse that you ever imagine. It's not that this is another example of "no core" pornography, where the sex scenes are so abortive not even a premature ejaculator can enjoy them. It's not that this is the thespian version of I Am Legend, where one guy who can act is surrounded by a cast of zombie performers who can barely speak. It's not that the script of this erotic thriller, and I couldn't possibly use those words any more loosely, is written at a 2nd grade reading level. And it's not that it's directed with all the flair of any random hour of the Home Shopping Network.

No, I not only saw an example of suck in this film I've never seen before, I've never seen anything close to being so idiotically inept. On two separate occasions, the audience is shown headlines in a newspaper that convey some expository information to the viewer. We've all seen that sort of thing umpteen times before, though newspaper pages have pretty much been replaced by now with video displays. The folks who made this movie either couldn't be bothered or didn't know how to mock up a fake newspaper. So, and I am not making this up, they just took a real newspaper and glued onto it white strips of paper on which they had printed out their expository headlines. They even glued a white strip with "Los Angeles Herald" on it over whatever was the name of the real paper.

I have seen movies made by people so lacking in intelligence I can't believe they're capable of feeding and dressing themselves. I've watched motion pictures made by people so lacking in creative spark they're like a box of matches on the bottom of the ocean. Even they never did anything as shockingly stupid as trying to paste fake headlines into a real paper. Forget about the fake headlines being on bright white paper that starkly contrasts with newsprint. Forget about coming up with an alternate way of conveying your expository information to the viewer, like a fake radio or TV news broadcast. Why in the name of Cecil B. De Mille would you not just have one character holding the newspaper and "reading" the expository headlines to another character, with the audience never actually seeing them. How is that not quicker and easier than pasting stuff into a real paper? How do you not think of that, especially after you've glued down the fake headlines and even a blind person can see they look like horse hockey?

I'm not saying Deviant Obsession is the worst film I've ever seen. It's too pedestrianly awful in every other way for that. This is simply the single most egregious example of filmmaking ineptitude I've ever encountered.

For what it's worth, the story is about a red head (Brick Randall) whose married lover is framed for the murder of his wife after he spends the night banging yet another woman. Her investigation into the crime results in her becoming a stripper and screwing two more guys herself. The guy playing the married lover (John St. James) could easily show up on one of the CSI shows as a murder suspect and the audience wouldn't think anything of it. He's a professional actor. Everybody else here couldn't even get cast as a sheet-covered corpse in the morgue that the CSI people walk past on their way to the table where this week's murder victim is all splayed out. An actual brick could have read the dialog better than Brick Randall and one of her co-stars must suffer from a medical condition that renders him unable to alter the tone of his voice.

And to reiterate, there's not nearly enough nudity and softcore sex scenes here to make Deviant Obsession even legitimate spanking material. You'd be better off looking at the advertisements in the window of your local Victoria's Secret. You'd be better off watching an endless loop of Kathy Bates getting into the hot tub in About Schmidt.

If your only entertainment options are viewing Deviant Obsession or having someone inject heroin between your toes, go chase the dragon . A lifetime of addiction and withdrawal is the superior choice.

Good as TVMA movies go

[ronnie0a · 7/10 · 16 December 2016]

This is an erotic B-movie made to fit within the TVMA Rating. The plot has a female lawyer try to prove her lover is innocent of killing his wife. As usual with TVMA, the plot gives way to stretches of erotica that will fit within the Rating, and the characters are played by former porn stars who now work in films that just simulate sex.

Although the scenes seem at times to be disjointed from the story line, this is overall good example of TVMA Rated fare. I was happy with the effort put into scene transition attempting to reduce the disjointed scene transitions typical of these movies, and with the size of the cast that allowed for more plot development than typical.

EXCELLENT EROTIC THRILLER

[bazdol · 10/10 · 7 June 2002]

A nicely done thriller with plenty of sex in it. I saw it on late night TV. There are two hardcore stars in it, Lauen Montgomery and Venus. Thankfully, Gabriella Hall has just a small part.

Why did B-movies get so cheap?

[sleeplessman · 10/10 · 9 October 2002]

This low-budget erotic thriller that has some good points, but a lot more bad one. The plot revolves around a female lawyer trying to clear her lover who is accused of murdering his wife. Being a soft-core film, that entails her going undercover at a strip club and having sex with possible suspects. As plots go for this type of genre, not to bad. The script is okay, and the story makes enough sense for someone up at 2 AM watching this not to notice too many plot holes. But everything else in the film seems cheap. The lead actors aren't that bad, but pretty much all the supporting ones are unbelievably bad (one girl seems like she is drunk and/or high). The cinematography is badly lit, with everything looking grainy and ugly. The sound is so terrible that you can barely hear what people are saying. The worst thing in this movie is the reason you're watching it-the sex. The reason people watch these things is for hot sex scenes featuring really hot girls in Red Shoe Diary situations. The sex scenes aren't hot they're sleazy, shot in that porno style where everything is just a master shot of two people going at it. The woman also look like they are refuges from a porn shoot. I'm not trying to be rude or mean here, but they all have that breast implants and a burned out/weathered look. Even the title, "Deviant Obsession", sounds like a Hardcore flick. Not that I don't have anything against porn - in fact I love it. But I want my soft-core and my hard-core separate. What ever happened to actresses like Shannon Tweed, Jacqueline Lovell, Shannon Whirry and Kim Dawson? Women that could act and who would totally arouse you? And what happened to B erotic thrillers like Body Chemistry, Nighteyes and even Stripped to Kill. Sure, none of these where masterpieces, but at least they felt like movies. Plus, they were pushing the envelope, going beyond Hollywood's relatively prude stance on sex, sexual obsessions and perversions. Now they just make hard-core films without the hard-core sex.

Awful.

[vandwedge · 4 June 2006]

I have two very major complaints regarding this film.

1. That my local rental store shelved what is very clearly a soft core porn in the "suspense" category. (Had I known what it was, I would not have wasted my time renting it in the first place. And yes, this movie is a soft core porn.)

2. The title has nothing to do with the movie. No one in this movie does anything that is either deviant or obsessive, let alone a combination of the two.

Actually, make that three major complaints:

3. That I for some reason watched the movie long enough to discover point number two on this list. Boy do I regret that. Stay away from this movie. Learn from my mistake. This movie is valueless on virtually every level.

What ever happened to erotic movies?

[sleeplessman · 10/10 · 17 October 2002]

This flick is sterling example of the state of erotic B-movies: bad porn movies without the hardcore sex. The plot in this one isn't so bad as these things go; it involves a female lawyer trying to prove her lover is innocent of killing his wife. The rest of the movie, however, leaves something to be desired. Bad acting, bad direction, bad looking woman, bad sets, bad cinematography, bad sound and bad sex scenes. The filmmakers should learn the difference between raunchy and erotic. They don't even have the common sense to have Gabriella Hall naked or in a love scene.

How dumb is that?

Phoned-in softie film.

[BlackJack_B · 13 October 2002]

I swear, after seeing this film for 40 minutes, I got bored real fast. Another Marc Greenberg production (who seems to churn these out quite often, no one who watches softies has gone long without seeing one of his babies), we get to see a film with man-made babes having "philosophical discussions" right out of the box. I really hate films in which they just queue to the "philosophical discussions" without any foreplay or stripping/kissing. The story about a lawyer and a man who seems to be having a day similar to Tom Hanks' character from "Bonfire Of The Vanities" was a yawner with poor acting, a lame, cheesy script, and unattractive hard-stuff refugees. I would have liked it more if Gabby Hall had more to do with it, she's the only one in the cast with a modicum of talent. Poor effort from 2002.