Theo Robertson Thankfully the only dodgy thing about LOLITA 2000 is the title . Come to think of it it`s a really stupid title for a soft core porn movie which may turn off a potential audience , but take it from me that the cast are well above the age of consent . I should know because watched this movie over and over again , made a note of the cast members names , typed them into an internet search engine to find out their dates of births and I can confirm it`s all above board . We`re not talking Traci Lords here As you`d expect in these type of movies there`s a very basic premise that`s just an excuse to show some soft core sex , but LOLITA 2000 is better than most simply because the cast look like they might actually be having sex , and boy are the actresses fit with special mention going to Gabriella Hall If I have any complaints it`s to do with the sound cutting out during the sex scenes to be replaced by muzak which is my main gripe about all these soft core movies . But I musn`t grumble too much because the cast are hot which is not something I can say about many hard core movies

David Brown Lolita 2000 ranks up there with Virtual Encounters 1, Virtual Encounters 2, and Femalien as one of the "must have" softcore videos that Surrender Cinema released in the last half of the 1990's.This is what softcore is supposed to be. The women are beautiful, the sex scenes are plentiful, and the action stops just short of actual hardcore. My favorites scenes were the prison cell lesbians and the totally gratuitous encounter between the 1950's lovers in the diner.This is an easy recommendation.

monsters from the id Everything about this movie is a muddle, starting with the title, which appears in distribution as both "Lolita:2000" and "O Lita:2000". (Given that the millennium is just around the corner, 2000 seems like a quaint choice for evoking the world of the future.)We enter the studio of a space-age DJ, spinning platters and cyber-broadcasting erotic adventures, like some pirate radio station off the coast of Baja. Our hostess is the lovely and ever-uninhibited Jacqueline Lovell, in silver shorts and halter-top, wiggling her behind as The Shape Of Things To Come.The first episode stars Taylor St. Claire as a woman trapped in a nightmarish world of recovered memory and alien abduction. There's really not much to this episode: it has a beginning, a middle, and an end...not necessarily in that order. And we get to see a fair amount of the naked and luscious Taylor St Claire, even if her performance is in the key of Hysteria.In the bridge between this episode and the next, the camera meanders into the broadcast studio and, like some spooky voyeur, silently watches Jacqueline and another woman fondle and undress each other. When our two space lovers finally notice the camera (and presumably us), they scramble for their clothes and the moment is gone. I do have to admit that Jacqueline's surprise is so convincing that I really wondered if the director had interrupted an unscripted moment. Like much of this movie, everything seems to happen by accident.The second episode is the simplest and most cohesive of the three and has the best of the erotic scenes. Our fearless heroine is a swaggering space pirate, like a blonde Bruce Willis, cracking wise to her alien captors and having sex with anyone in the neighborhood: with another human prisoner (male), with her alien cell-mate (female) and even with her alien captor (also female). The sex scenes are long and well-done, even if the lighting, meant to evoke the dark, claustrophobic confines of the prison, can be a bit distracting.I did have a difficult time in matching the players in this scene with the names in the final credits. Was our blonde space jockey named Juno? And was she played by the elusive Lisa Sutton AKA Lisa Comshaw AKA Tori or Tory Sinclair AKA Fawna? Well, you get the idea. My only real success was identifying the alien cell-mate, played by the voluptuous and oddly-named J. Nichole Italiano-Zaza, (better known as Nikki Nova.)Last, we have the most muddled of the episodes as we follow some poor schmuck lost in the Time Machine, travelling from the present year back to the 50's, and then fast-forwarding to some future dystopian Mad Max scenario and finally back in history to the days of the cave-man. I abandoned any hope of continuity or logic and just enjoyed the ample displays of naked flesh. The scene finally comes to an end, more by running out of steam than through any plot device.And as the movie lurches towards the exit, we are finally rewarded for our patience, watching Jacqueline Lovell slowly strip to some perky, futuristic Musak, with neither the camera nor Jacqueline shy about providing us with some clinical glimpses of her anatomy. Credits finally roll and we see out-takes of the cave-man scenes and listen to someone off-camera give directions and then finally call for a lunch break. The director was apparently reluctant to waste any footage and so we have a movie that feels as cobbled-together as Dr. Frankenstein's creation.My advice is simply to remember that it's late at night and there's probably nothing else on. So relax, enjoy the abundant nudity, and don't search for deeper meanings. There aren't any.

cmikeb This is a rare case where a Cinemax-type porn succeeds. A very good plan was used to make this movie: get a bunch of incredibly good looking women together and show off their naked bodies, a lot. It worked.