moonchildiva
As usual, I only bought this film off ebay because Richard Rust is in it...as Les, the motorcycle vegan drug dealer, which makes not much sense, but one of the characters asked him how he can be a drug dealer AND a vegan and he had a pretty good answer. I was not disappointed, once again AS USUAL because he was not only HANDSOME but interesting in this movie, which although not an excellent film, is mildly amusing. I'm pretty sure I DID see it in the drive in, and was not surprised to see it called a Drive In Movie here and there on the internet. I have to admit I laughed out loud a few times. That's worth something! And truthfully, since there were a lot of movies like this one at that time, it has to be considered a genre! I would actually recommend this movie to some people.
Ii_fut_in_gura_pe_stelisti
IMDb mark: 3This is a '70s type of film, all the way. Even though it was produced by Roger Corman's company, I don't think it is exactly the type of film people expect when they hear his name. Very likely, this blandness, as some might call it, has something to do with the fact that a woman directed the movie.-Cast: I only heard of Elaine Giftos, whom I saw in a couple of episodes of 'Three's Company'. Other than her, I have never heard of any of the others. 2/20-Nudity: I think Phred is the blond one; she is nude three times. Priscilla has the best nude scene, however. And Sharon is briefly topless, also. 14/20-Ending: I wasn't crazy about the ending at all. Of course, taste varies. 4/15-Acting: The acting in Corman's movies is usually very cheesy. So, maybe it's not surprising that it seemed cheesy here, too. 2/11-Plot: Here are these 4 nurses, who are studying to become nurses. Dumb, isn't it? While doing so, they work and play, get tangled with the wrong people and, naturally, get involved with men. Each one of the four has like her own subplot. 2/10-Theme: Don't mix business with pleasure. At least, that's what I make of it. 4/10-Soundtrack: I couldn't say I liked it. 2/10-Genre: This is a drama. 1/4-->Overall: 31/100Apart from the fact that the nurses are easy on the eyes, I couldn't possibly see why anyone would be compelled to watch this movie. It's a really bad sort of drama. From Swordlord, 2 swords down!
john_matlock
In about 1984 this movie was re-released under the name Young L.A. Nurses. It's the same movie with the title changed.This movie is rated at about 5 our of 10. I think the people doing the rating are being very generous. It's pretty bad.Still, the girls are pretty. And I guess there is somewhat of a story.
Kat Miss
I rented a copy of this from my local Blockbuster expecting nothing much but the usual amount of T & A and sex. But after I watched it, I was surprised by how thoughtful it was, that it was about something after all.I'm not going to go into the plot, because I think it's more effective if you enter into this film cold, knowing nothing about it.This was the first film produced by Roger Corman's New World Pictures. Knowing Corman, I had figured that it would be low budget, but look like it cost more. I was right. Filmed on a budget of 150,000 it looks like it cost 1 million dollars.The video box makes this film look like a sex romp. Anyone watching this film for sex alone is bound to be disappointed. This is a smart, sensitive film that deals with serious issues such as abortion, protests, independent living and moral conflict. One possible reason for this is "The Student Nurses" was directed by Stephanie Rothman, a woman. Therefore, it ends up being less sleazy and exploitative than if it had been directed by a man. Most exploitation films are sleazy, no brainers. It's great to see an exploitation film that makes you think when you finish seeing it.
AD
