Simple-minded sex farce aims for sly smiles. On that level, it is amiable enough. All the actors seem to be having a genial enough time. There's not much else to tell -- just silly suburban hijinks, but nothing I found particularly offensive, or particularly interesting. But it was on a local UHF station while I worked out at a hotel gym, and for that it filled the bill nicely.
14 Reviews
Extremely bizarre 80's teen comedy (which is why I kinda liked it)
lazarillo7 March 2010
The phrase "so bad, it's good" gets thrown around way too much. A lot of movies like this one are not really THAT bad, and they're certainly not "good" in any sense of the word. But due to their very low-budgets, independent origins, and, yes, some amount of film-making ineptitude, they manage to be kind of, uh, well, different in a kind of interesting way. Although this is called "Getting It On", for instance, the two teen protagonists never do technically get around to really "getting it on". Most of the sex here actually involves the two heroes' balding, middle-age principal who they set up with a hooker, and the principal's sexy daughter who is involved with one of the protagonist's older brother.
The main protagonist, "Alex" (Martin Yost), is a video voyeur who uses early 80's video technology to spy on all the neighbor girls, including the pretty new-girl-next-door (Heather Kennedy) , who he also openly romances at the same time, and who somehow doesn't find his voyeurism the least bit creepy at all. However, when his best friend,"Nick", an orphan who lives with his older brother is in danger of being sent to a juvenile hall (for stealing a porno magazine!), he decides to take action by using his video equipment. In perhaps the weirdest scene in this weird movie, the protagonist, his friend, and the friend's brother--in order to put their crackpot plan into action--sneak into a local community costume party all dressed as Ku Klux KLANSMAN(!) and nobody even NOTICES!! I don't know if this is wry subversive genius or complete ineptitude on the part of the filmmakers, but it sure is different.
Of course, there is a smattering of female nudity involving the principal's daughter, and some neighborhood girls who are having a slumber party that turns into a sexy topless pillow fight (as girls' slumber parties invariably do). The two protagonists also spend a lot of time watching the girls' P.E. class, who wear VERY short gym shorts and seem to do A LOT of stretching. But what I really liked about this movie was it's sheer indie weirdness. I don't mean "indie" in the pretentious modern-day sense--most modern-day "indie" films are actually backed by Hollywood--I mean these old, truly independent exploitation films made by Middle American regional filmmakers who would never come anywhere NEAR legitimate Hollywood, and really had a COMPLETELY different sensibility. Anyway, if you like this movie, also check out another very bizarro early 80's teen comedy called "Incoming Freshman".
The main protagonist, "Alex" (Martin Yost), is a video voyeur who uses early 80's video technology to spy on all the neighbor girls, including the pretty new-girl-next-door (Heather Kennedy) , who he also openly romances at the same time, and who somehow doesn't find his voyeurism the least bit creepy at all. However, when his best friend,"Nick", an orphan who lives with his older brother is in danger of being sent to a juvenile hall (for stealing a porno magazine!), he decides to take action by using his video equipment. In perhaps the weirdest scene in this weird movie, the protagonist, his friend, and the friend's brother--in order to put their crackpot plan into action--sneak into a local community costume party all dressed as Ku Klux KLANSMAN(!) and nobody even NOTICES!! I don't know if this is wry subversive genius or complete ineptitude on the part of the filmmakers, but it sure is different.
Of course, there is a smattering of female nudity involving the principal's daughter, and some neighborhood girls who are having a slumber party that turns into a sexy topless pillow fight (as girls' slumber parties invariably do). The two protagonists also spend a lot of time watching the girls' P.E. class, who wear VERY short gym shorts and seem to do A LOT of stretching. But what I really liked about this movie was it's sheer indie weirdness. I don't mean "indie" in the pretentious modern-day sense--most modern-day "indie" films are actually backed by Hollywood--I mean these old, truly independent exploitation films made by Middle American regional filmmakers who would never come anywhere NEAR legitimate Hollywood, and really had a COMPLETELY different sensibility. Anyway, if you like this movie, also check out another very bizarro early 80's teen comedy called "Incoming Freshman".
Do yourself a favor and avoid this waste.
zep-319 May 2011
Wow is this a bad film,even by T&A standards. Other reviews have said it well...Not funny at all,creepy/sleazy story (this coming from a fan of R rated teen sex comedies),bland acting and ALMOST NO NUDITY. To make things even worse the film is shot poorly and the print is very dark and flat,i'm sure at least partly due to next to zero budget.
Who came up with the brilliant idea to make a T&A comedy about a guy secretly video taping women undressing,and then make it not funny with barely any nudity!?
I am telling you as a T&A connoisseur-avoid this movie at all costs,its a complete waste and there is nothing to see here.The DVD cover is the only thing good about Getting It On.
Who came up with the brilliant idea to make a T&A comedy about a guy secretly video taping women undressing,and then make it not funny with barely any nudity!?
I am telling you as a T&A connoisseur-avoid this movie at all costs,its a complete waste and there is nothing to see here.The DVD cover is the only thing good about Getting It On.
Sucks on so many levels
joeylinville13 February 2001
Something has to be the worst movie ever. I believe this is a viable candidate. Humor that's not funny, sex that's not enticing, dialogue that's not coherent--the lack of inspiration makes one pause. Why on Earth would anyone make such a bad movie? I saw it in high school after being duped into it by friends. We all agreed to never tell we'd seen any of it, let alone sat through the entire thing. God! Did it suck! You should see just to see if I'm right about this or not.
As dull as a film can be
anxietyresister5 August 2004
How can someone make a 90 minute feature and still end up with absolutely nothing? The answer lies within the confines of the tape of this (thankfully very rare) so-called "sex comedy" which jettisoned both claims to such an extent it should be prosecuted under the False Claims act. Supposedly about a high school boy who gets state of the art video equipment (for 1983) to spy on his sexy female next door neighbour getting undressed, it actually abandons this sick but promising premise about half-way through in favour of a myriad of sub-plots about five uninteresting character's love-lives. Unfortunately this plays out as all talk and no action, so skin fans will be bored out of their skulls, and everybody else will be tearing their hair out at the amateurish acting and the extreme slow pace of the movie. So to sum up then, a film for no-one. Right, back to the video store we go.. 2/10
slime, but lame at the same time.
mm-393 November 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Gave a bit of a look at what the 80's looked like to see how times changed. This is what I learned from Getting It On. Back in the days of 80's middle class suburbia how out touch we were.. Young and full of hormones kids would joke would not it be cool to get video equipment and film girls in the locker room, and there house etc. Guy's would joke around like this in the early 80's before shows like hard copy arrived latter. Found out such events really happened with some very bizarre sick predator's. Before such time people joked around about stupid adults, being over cool and public humiliations was not so bad before the internet. How times and techknowledgy have changed us. Such acting tough, trying be overly smart, and dressings up for Halloween which could get you killed injured today give us a hits of reality of what time was like before social media and cable new. The clothes and the arcade etc brings back memories, but the low budget films with mix of sleeze and cheap sets are about as slow and bad acting of the old grade b awful horror movie from the same decade. 2 stars was trash then and still is. Not in a good way.
Great movie!!!
Startpistolen16 August 2001
Propably one of the best movies made last century! The nude flamethrower was awesome!!! Have seen it at least 15 times the last month!! Does anybody know when the DVD-release is going to be. Great movie!!
MostSeeMovie
MostSeeMovie
Not as sleazy as you might think (or hope)
Groverdox10 February 2016
"Getting It On" takes a seedy, repugnant premise, and then fails to go anywhere even particularly smutty with it. It's a movie about a teenager who apparently has hidden cameras in multiple areas around town filming girls taking their clothes off and having sex... and then makes you wait more than half the length of the movie before it shows you a glimpse of bare breast.
If this is confusing, it's nothing compared to the movie's "plot", which receives so little exposition that the movie makes little, if any, sense. I understood that the movie's protagonist has a flair for filming girls without them realising it, and also likes his next door neighbour. He has the typical goofy, obnoxious best friend who encourages him into emulating this behaviour when he is around the girl of his dreams, when he should just be "being himself".
I didn't really understand the point of the voyeuristic sequences, when the main character watches, for example, a group of girls having a pillow fight he has apparently filmed. This is, I guess, what sets the movie apart from other teen T'n A flicks, but in the movie itself it amounts to nothing. It could have been sleazily exploited to show more skin, and let's face it, it probably should have been! This is why people watch these movies, after all. However there is so little nudity in the movie, and the kid's voyeurism adds nothing to the story, so what was the point of it?
At one point it seems that his creepy hobby is going to save the day when his best friend is about to be sent to an all boys' school due to misbehaviour. The boys get a prostitute off the street, take her to a weird fancy dress party where both adults and teens are in attendance and the best friend dresses like a Klansman, and have the hooker seduce the kid's dad while on videotape.
They then play the film on the TV set the dad and his wife are watching, so that the wife can see her husband's adultery. What was the point of this? Revenge? Blackmail would have seemed a more obvious option. The response of the couple is even more bizarre and inexplicable.
Overall though, I enjoyed this movie. It's not as repugnant as it could have been, and I couldn't help but like the two main characters.
If this is confusing, it's nothing compared to the movie's "plot", which receives so little exposition that the movie makes little, if any, sense. I understood that the movie's protagonist has a flair for filming girls without them realising it, and also likes his next door neighbour. He has the typical goofy, obnoxious best friend who encourages him into emulating this behaviour when he is around the girl of his dreams, when he should just be "being himself".
I didn't really understand the point of the voyeuristic sequences, when the main character watches, for example, a group of girls having a pillow fight he has apparently filmed. This is, I guess, what sets the movie apart from other teen T'n A flicks, but in the movie itself it amounts to nothing. It could have been sleazily exploited to show more skin, and let's face it, it probably should have been! This is why people watch these movies, after all. However there is so little nudity in the movie, and the kid's voyeurism adds nothing to the story, so what was the point of it?
At one point it seems that his creepy hobby is going to save the day when his best friend is about to be sent to an all boys' school due to misbehaviour. The boys get a prostitute off the street, take her to a weird fancy dress party where both adults and teens are in attendance and the best friend dresses like a Klansman, and have the hooker seduce the kid's dad while on videotape.
They then play the film on the TV set the dad and his wife are watching, so that the wife can see her husband's adultery. What was the point of this? Revenge? Blackmail would have seemed a more obvious option. The response of the couple is even more bizarre and inexplicable.
Overall though, I enjoyed this movie. It's not as repugnant as it could have been, and I couldn't help but like the two main characters.
I'm in this movie!
fullaware23 May 2001
This was filmed in my neighborhood when I was a Freshman in High School. I was an extra in the school auditorium scene where the "sex tape" is shown, Want to know more, email me. This was originally called 'American Voyeur' when I went to the premiere where the mayor of Hickory, NC gave Olsen a key to the city, with a crowd full of people dressed to the 9's. Then, a coming-of-age flick movie came up on the screen; nice surprise for that crowd.
Represents Indie 80's Sensibilities Well
writersinmotion1 January 2005
This film was obviously made on a shoestring, because of the limited number of locations and no special effects. However, the charming actors, strong script with a real STORY for once, IE., sub-plot, character arcs, etc more than make up for any budget limitations. And for the skin freaks, there is no augmentation -- girls back then didn't need a boost in the chest to lift their self esteem. The film has no malice, which is not true for many teen comedies today. The extras on the DVD are great; a photo featurette; directors commentary, and the New York auditions round out a nostalgic look into 80's film-making that still holds up real well.
This is a Restoration. Nostalgic Teen Rom Com. Not HD
treanewsome9 November 2020
The quality of the dub is lousy, But I appreciate them saving a piece of b-grade 80s history. I do wish they could find a better copy to upscale into 1080p. It is a wild zanny sex tease exploitation film, a standard fare in teenage years back then before #metoo movement and the like.
A terrible amateur comedy that is devoid of laughter, as well as racy sex.
joseppi-27 October 2001
GETTING IT ON bills itself as a typical promiscuous sex comedy and fails miserably. It is a painfully amateur production with a cast of no-names that tend to make a viewer cringe every time they open their mouths. The cast is lead by Martin Yost, who plays Alex, a teen-age Peeping Tom who decides to turn his perverted pastime into a money-making scheme. His father blindly agrees to give his son the $4000 to start a security surveillance business, which Alex can then use as an excuse to spy on other people, presumably "in the act". The father is unbelievably naive. It would have helped if the father was more suspicious of what his son was doing with all this expensive equipment. As for the "peep" sequences, they are far and few in the film and lack imagination for what the film is trying to advertise. No new ground is broken here.
There is no drive to the film. It is dull and the actors just seem to be going through the motions. That and the director tries to use two different sequences in which an actor pulls a gun on someone else as a surprise comedic effect, which is a lousy attempt at cheap laughs. The film weighs in at about 90 minutes, and by 90 minutes it's too long! Don't bother with this one. Try PORKY'S or MISCHIEF instead.
There is no drive to the film. It is dull and the actors just seem to be going through the motions. That and the director tries to use two different sequences in which an actor pulls a gun on someone else as a surprise comedic effect, which is a lousy attempt at cheap laughs. The film weighs in at about 90 minutes, and by 90 minutes it's too long! Don't bother with this one. Try PORKY'S or MISCHIEF instead.
Amiable 80's teen comedy romp
Woodyanders25 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Handsome, but shy high school freshman Alex Carson (a solid and likable performance by Martin Yost) has a crush on new girl next door Sally Clark (an appealing portrayal by the fetching Heather Kennedy). Carson and his mischievous pal Nick (winningly played with delightful brash aplomb by Jeff Edmund) install hidden video cameras close to Sally's house so they can secretly tape Sally and her friends in action.
While the basic premise sounds like your standard raunchy horny adolescent fare, writer/director William Olsen for the most part refreshingly eschews said expected lowbrow antics to place more of an emphasis on the engaging and believable teenage characters, with Alex's awkward pining for Sally providing a substantial amount of real heart and sweetness. However, Olsen still delivers a satisfying smattering of bare female skin and several amusing wacky moments while maintaining an affable good-natured and lighthearted tone throughout. Moreover, it's acted with zest by an enthusiastic cast, with especially praiseworthy contributions from Mark Alan Ferri as Nick's swaggering macho older brother Richard, Kathy Brickmeier as Richard's bubbly girlfriend Marilyn, C.K. Bibby as uptight killjoy principal Mr. White, and Caroline McDonald as Alex's perky mom. The right-on rock soundtrack hits the groovy spot. Austin McKinney's bright cinematography gives this picture an attractive sunny look as well as makes nifty occasional use of wipes and split screen. A nice little film.
While the basic premise sounds like your standard raunchy horny adolescent fare, writer/director William Olsen for the most part refreshingly eschews said expected lowbrow antics to place more of an emphasis on the engaging and believable teenage characters, with Alex's awkward pining for Sally providing a substantial amount of real heart and sweetness. However, Olsen still delivers a satisfying smattering of bare female skin and several amusing wacky moments while maintaining an affable good-natured and lighthearted tone throughout. Moreover, it's acted with zest by an enthusiastic cast, with especially praiseworthy contributions from Mark Alan Ferri as Nick's swaggering macho older brother Richard, Kathy Brickmeier as Richard's bubbly girlfriend Marilyn, C.K. Bibby as uptight killjoy principal Mr. White, and Caroline McDonald as Alex's perky mom. The right-on rock soundtrack hits the groovy spot. Austin McKinney's bright cinematography gives this picture an attractive sunny look as well as makes nifty occasional use of wipes and split screen. A nice little film.
Warm and winning teen comedy
lor_27 January 2023
Originally titled "American Voyeur" but released as "Getting It On", this North Carolina-lense teenage comedy nimbly pumps new life into the overdone high school hijinks genre. Though marketed as another raunchy "Porky's" followup, the William Olsen production is a well-acted, sweet and funny picture.
Filmmaker Olsen targets our consumerist and video-obsessed culture for some ribbing in this story of high school freshman Alex Carson (Martin Yost), with a crush on the girl next door, Sally (Heather Kennedy). Devising a video software business to earn money, Alex borrows his startup capital (at 15% interest) from his very businesslike dad, and with the help of his cutup classmate Nicholas (Jeff Edmond) takes the video equipment to record hidden camera footage of Heather and other pretty girts. When Nicholas is kicked out of school by mean principal White (Charles King Bibby), the heroes enlist he services of a friendly prostitute (Kim Saunders) to record footage of White in flagrante delicto.
What makes this material work is a fresh, enthusiastic cast, witty writing and direction by Olsen that bears no hint of malice. Though Alex's parents are caricatures, more interested in getting the latest satellite dish installed in the backyard than in their son's future, they are drawn as ingratiating characters, and even the practical joke directed against the principal turns out to benefit everyone, with no hard feelings. The script even includes a subplot reminiscent of the Matt Dillon-starrer "Tex", concerning Nicholas and his older brother Irving without parental supervision.
Young, attractive cast members match the teenage role requirements, though the pleasant lead player Martin Yost, an empathetic Timothy Hutton type, is of course older than the virginal 14-year-old in the script. Of special note is Bryan Elsom, very funny in a small role as a loquacious young Southern cab driver.
Tech credits for this modestly-budgeted effort are fine.
My review was written in August 1983 after a Times Square screening.
Filmmaker Olsen targets our consumerist and video-obsessed culture for some ribbing in this story of high school freshman Alex Carson (Martin Yost), with a crush on the girl next door, Sally (Heather Kennedy). Devising a video software business to earn money, Alex borrows his startup capital (at 15% interest) from his very businesslike dad, and with the help of his cutup classmate Nicholas (Jeff Edmond) takes the video equipment to record hidden camera footage of Heather and other pretty girts. When Nicholas is kicked out of school by mean principal White (Charles King Bibby), the heroes enlist he services of a friendly prostitute (Kim Saunders) to record footage of White in flagrante delicto.
What makes this material work is a fresh, enthusiastic cast, witty writing and direction by Olsen that bears no hint of malice. Though Alex's parents are caricatures, more interested in getting the latest satellite dish installed in the backyard than in their son's future, they are drawn as ingratiating characters, and even the practical joke directed against the principal turns out to benefit everyone, with no hard feelings. The script even includes a subplot reminiscent of the Matt Dillon-starrer "Tex", concerning Nicholas and his older brother Irving without parental supervision.
Young, attractive cast members match the teenage role requirements, though the pleasant lead player Martin Yost, an empathetic Timothy Hutton type, is of course older than the virginal 14-year-old in the script. Of special note is Bryan Elsom, very funny in a small role as a loquacious young Southern cab driver.
Tech credits for this modestly-budgeted effort are fine.
My review was written in August 1983 after a Times Square screening.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
