Hardbodies 2

I normally consider myself a bit of a tough guy when it comes to enduring bad movies. Somewhat in the way alcoholics build up a tolerance to hard liquor, I have a thick skin against terrible cinema provided there are at least a few redeeming moments. Inspired by nostalgia for late night cable TV, the only way to see nudity and real debauchery as a kid in the '80s, I decided to watch this wreck on an ultra cheap DVD. But it hit me a Mike Tyson (circa 1987) uppercut. I couldn't watch all of it. It's THAT bad. And I can enjoy basically any CANNON GROUP production (horrid cheeseball '80s action producers) ever made! A much better movie that accomplishes somewhat of what they were trying to do here is Summer Lovers featuring a very young Daryl Hannah. Or the original and much better Harbodies.

The entire premise of these '80s airhead summer teen sex movies is naked flesh, but at least some of them had a certain level of comedy or sexiness. But nothing here is funny, or particularly sexy. Brenda Bakke is absolutely stunning, but no one gets to do anything worthwhile because the movie is a failure from start to finish. I guess simply admiring her beauty is worth something (and most starlets did not have fake body parts back then, which is very refreshing). But overall, life is too short to watch movies like this. Or review them. Hey wait.....I just wasted.....uhh THE END.

wow.i thought the first Hardbodies was lame.this was worse.it's a cross between a soap opera and a romance.there's no comedy involved that i could see.but like the first one,there are of course topless women.the acting in this one isn't very good,but neither is the script or the dialogue.and the music isn't memorable in the slightest.really there isn't much merit to this movie that i can think of.however,as bad as this movie is i have seen a number of movies that are worse than this one.still,i wouldn't recommend it,even with the topless women.but that's just my opinion.the current rating on this site is a 2.3.i would rate it a little higher simply because of the number of worse movies i have seen.for me,Hardbodies 2 is a 3/10

"Hardbodies 2" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add "brainless" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in "The Big Doll House"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in "Hardbodies". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the "hotness" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. "Hardbodies 2" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*1/2)

This film was produced and released as a successor to a ghastly - although fairly popular - slapstick Californian beach comedy called Hardbodies, but it has little or no connection with the earlier film and is better assessed completely in its own right. It is certainly better than Hardbodies I, and is more closely related to films such as Venus and Summer Lovers which were also filmed during summer in the Greek Islands. The combination of blissful beaches on blue bays with beautiful bare bosoms makes for seductive viewing, but (except for travelogues just designed to help plan your next holiday) even such films require an adequate story line if they are to hold a viewers attention for more than a very few minutes. Venus was underpinned by the legend of the re-incarnation of the goddess, and Summer Lovers had the viability of a "menage a trois" as its theme. In my view both these films were much more successful than Hardbodies II which has a very tenuous story line and depends too much on simplistic semi-slapstick comedy. The use of slapstick quickly becomes tedious, it usually leads to a series of very short self contained cameo sequences that are hard to integrate into an ongoing story line. Mel Brooks achieved this brilliantly with Silent Movie, but few other films have succeeded in the same way, and Hardbodies II unfortunately does not. There is also the problem that the slapstick sequences do not co-habit happily with the idyllic and peaceful scenario in which the film is set. The final airport sequences were no doubt intended to provide a hilarious ending for this film but in my opinion they are an example of the worst type of overplayed slapstick pseudo-comedy. They are also grossly overlong, so I left the cinema with a bad taste left in my mouth. This is a film which could have been much more successful with a stronger story line and with most of its slapstick sequences very heavily pruned. As it was released it certainly does not warrant a viewers rating higher than 3.

There is little memorable in the acting, but the cast does its best within the limitations imposed by a meagre story line and poor direction - it is in these latter areas that the failure arises.

Pointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.

It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though.