User reviews

This littler sucker came on late night TV and I ended up watching, almost like a train wreck. You keep watching, totally amazed these good actors (Dean Stockwell, David Warner & the cute Brian Krause) are stuck in this badly concepted movie. The script sucks, and Pamela Anderson is there purely for sex - both with Krause (one rather vivid scene in particular - not necessary to plot) and fondling other women in the name of fine art.

Don't trust the physics - very shaky and zero credibility. There's little the actors or director could do with such a sucky script. Add a few bad actors in with a few decent ones - and you can really tell the difference. The best scene in my opinion is between Krause and Stockwell as Krause is leaving the university, but the rest is really struggling. While maybe not Z-grade, it's awfully close. Might be so bad its funny for some.

For very late night TV it's perfect. To buy or rent, don't waste your money unless you're a fan of any of the actors mentioned above.

"Edward" (Brian Krause) is a scientist who is experimenting with capturing memories from dead people. His girlfriend, "Britt" (Pamela Anderson) is an artist. Lately, Edward hasn't spent much time with Britt and this is putting a huge strain on their relationship. Likewise, the fact that Edward has just been denied a grant to continue his research is adding to his stress levels. All of a sudden a famous scientist named "Everett Longstreet" (David Warner) comes along and offers Edward his entire estate. But there is a catch. Anyway, rather than disclose any of the mysteries of this film I will just say that I suppose it is watchable--but just barely. Obviously, the main attraction in this movie is Pamela Anderson and her presence certainly helped. Additionally, David Warner and Dean Stockwell (as "Duncan") also performed adequately. But the main problem with this film was the clumsy dialogue which impacted everyone's performance to a degree but most notably that of Brian Krause. In short, other than Pamela Anderson there really isn't anything remarkable about this film and I rate it as slightly below average.

It's need more lighting in the sex scenes. It ruins the scenes when it's poor lightning during the Sex scenes. Pamela Anderson does her best but the Sex needs more lightning can't really see her body I wish it was best or better needs more taste needs more. Timing needs more scenes of Pamela. She is my favorite actress. I wish the Director thought of more light in the sex would've been more better ratings better showing more chemistry the value of the movie, the value of the story and the Integrity I wish there was a remake with Pamela back in it or reboot or they can clean up the movie to make a good and make it better.

An elderly, crippled scientist offers funding to a struggling experimenter who is working on a new thought-transferral procedure. He tricks the younger guy by transferring his soul between their bodies. What complicates matters is that the soul of a dead serial killer gets mixed in creating dangerous impulses.

This sci-fi thriller is one of an easily identifiable type of movie whose only real selling point is its nudity. I say easily identifiable because the cover imagery in these films always plays up the presence of the sexy girl who they have hired for the eye candy. In this instance it's the very beautiful Pamela Anderson who the film-makers had at their disposal. She is by a massive distance, the only thing of any merit in this film. Despite what most of us hope for, she isn't naked very often but when she is she is delectable. Actually, come to think of it, even when she is fully clothed she is pretty delectable here too. She may be eye candy but she is premier division eye candy. In this film she plays a performance artist who likes to pour paint onto the bodies of semi-naked girls. As good as this idea is it isn't unfortunately explored in quite enough detail for my liking!

The problem with the movie, however, is that the plot-line kind of gets in the way a bit too much. It's not that a soft-core film can never successfully blend a narrative in with erotic moments – another Anderson vehicle Snapdragon does this fairly well. The main problem here is that despite being top-billed, this film mainly neglects her, choosing instead to focus on the two scientists in their none-too interesting experiments. And once the soul transferral experiment happens, the whole serial killer part of the story is very badly mishandled - it never plays up even remotely closely to its thrilling possibilities. Ultimately, this is a movie that sets up an interesting enough, if unoriginal set of ideas but doesn't deliver much on its early promise. It stars David Warner in the role as the elder scientist and Dean Stockwell in a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo. But at the end of the day, the only sane reason to watch this is to see the very lovely Ms Anderson.

Taken as a sci-fi thriller, "Naked Souls" lies somewhere between "mediocre" and "not bad". The ideas (mind-switching, memory transfer, etc) are intriguing, even if they have been used in many other films (the French thriller "La Machine", with Depardieu, is one that comes to mind), but this film goes nowhere with them. However, Pamela Anderson looks breathtakingly gorgeous here (I don't remember ever seeing her look better), and she has one particularly sensual sex scene (damn was her partner a lucky guy!). The filmmakers must have liked that scene too, because they repeat it in the last few minutes....and it's actually better the second time because it's not intercut (like it is the first time) with David Warner's reactions. No disrespect to Warner, who is a fine actor, but he kind of kills the mood in this instance, if you know what I mean....(**)

Naked Souls was described on it's cover as an explicitly erotic thriller, something it is definetly not. It's just the kind of thriller that's made to cash in on Pamela's assets and the kind of wasteful slop you expect to run really late on Monday night television. Still, it does dabble in some really interesting themes and has some surprising plot twists which lift it above the usual B-grade standard. The performances by what could be called a respectable B-grade cast aren't too bad. Krause captures his character quite well, and Dean Stockwell and Pamela Anderson aren't bad in their underused (yes Pamela is underused AGAIN!) supporting roles. Definately NOT an exceptional piece of work, but a vaguely entertaining piece of dismal thriller all the same.

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs ................Think how many reviews this film has received complaining about the bad acting and awful story.Well,I'd actually rented it expecting,and,dare I say it,actually vaguely hoping for these things.I just wanted to be titillated by the gorgeous Pamela Anderson Lee engaging in frequent sexual encounters.After all,the back sleeve did promise SEX/NUDITY to be frequent and strong.It was this or face the shame of renting a porno video.So I wanted to see Pamela basically screwing anything that moves.WHAT?This sucked.There were about two sexually explicit scenes in the whole film.And they weren't even kinky and naughty like I hoped ,they were more sensuous and intimate.Needless to say,the two things mentioned above were as bad as expected.So instead of someone knocking her door to be greeted with a forward yank and ''come here big boy'',you get some heavily pretentious ''acting'' from Pammy.Even Barb Wire was a better porno video than this.One to completely avoid,and not risk losing your credit over.*

Indeed, it took less than 6 minutes for Pam to get nude. Then, she did it again in a bed and all along the movie, she kept wearing very revealing clothes (except when she got out of bed!).

Beyond, all the female characters get also nude: the wife of the mad scientist, the victims of the serial killers, the model for Pam's art. Well, i admit that both Pam and Seana are really stunning but all this gratuitous nudity is unfortunate (= it adds nothing to the story).

However, it's the only thing that matters here because all the rest is crap:

* Davis Warner becomes albinos (his face is painted white to underline that his character is old and don't see the daylight often!)

* I believe in ghosts, UFOs, Nessy, Bigfoot but the sharing of memories and souls by smoke is utterly stupid!

* for a short movie, you kept seeing the same sequences over and over: thus, its runtime isn't 80 minutes but rather 70 or less!

But, don't count on me to slap Pam's acting because we need all sorts of acting for all sorts of movies and emotions. I think that Pam is fine because she offers a kind, down to earth personality. Thus, we can share and care for her and it's the basic tool for any artist. Unfortunately, having been labeled the blonde sex-symbol of the 90s, she is despised at first sight and that's not a fair judgment.

In conclusion, the only memories of this movie would be those of Pam (and Seana too.)

What can I say about this awful movie ? Bad actors, bad plot, bad scenes. That would do it.

The only reason you should see this movie is for Pamela Anderson, and I'm not saying it because of her "talents" (if I can call it like that) as an actress, but yes because of her... Let's say... Nice "body performances". That all. Don't expect anything else from this movie. The whole plot is confusing and unrealistic, besides, it's way to slow and most of the time, boring, which by the way, translates the entire meaning of this flick, it's a really, REALLY boring movie (unless you like to see tons of naked babes, which was the only reason it made me from turning off the TV).

Rating: 1,5 out of 10 (I would give it a 1, but I will give it a bonus for it's naked babes...)

If I think now the impossible doesn't exist it's cause for me make a so boring movie like that was impossible. Even in my best dream.

But the reality proof I'm wrong since I watch this movie.

I give this movie 1/10. And like many other boring movie the "1" is just for technical (image, sound, etc.)

Actor/actress can't be good in a so bad movie. Again I'm so surprised some guys find money to "create" a so bad movie.

Sorry Pam but even your breast can't save this movie.

If you received this movie in gift, think it's a bad joke!

Unless you can never get enough Pam Anderson, this film is sure to disappoint. The story is okay, and the cast does a decent enough job, but I was never able to get interested in this picture. The ending is fairly obvious from the start, and therefore much of the movie is just seeing exactly what roadblocks get in the way before all the pieces fall into place. Ho-hum.

The movie does not qualify as a film. The acting is poor, the script is horrible, and the camera man was using an illicit substance.

But........Pam is at her best. This is back when Pam was sexy, stacked, and all the body parts were firm. Without Pam, there would be no reason to ever see this movie. Her hair, eyes, lips, nips, and hips are a reason to see this movie twice. From the moment she appears in a scene, which is in the first ten minutes of the film, any one with a pulse can't wait for her next scene. She BUST onto the screen as a hot luscious and voluptuous blonde bombshell, and she never cools off. Beyond that,I cant tell you much about this train wreck of a film, but 7 of the 8 points I gave to this film was for Pamela Anderson.

Nineties golden girl Pamela Anderson plays an artist called Britt, her scientist boyfriend Edward (Brian Krause, he's one very lucky chap!) seems more interested in doing illicit experiments on cadavers than cuddling up with her (he must be mad!). He taps into the memory of dead serial killer Travis Mitchell, in black and white he sees him murder several naked buxom women (done in point of view, or POV). Old rich but crippled scientist Everett (David Warner, great actor) makes him an offer that Ed can't refuse but is in fact a trick in which, via a combination of science and Shamanism, their minds swap bodies. Old Everett now becomes young Ed but he has also been infected with the warped mind of Mitchell (serve him right!). This may sound complex but it is easy to follow. Pam gets top billing and although she was no doubt cast for her looks rather than her acting ability she plays the part well enough. Britt does strip off for some steamy sex scenes with lucky Ed. At first I wondered if a body double had been used as her face is covered by her blonde hair but no, Pam did indeed strip off (she's not a natural blonde if you look closely, if you know what I mean). For me that is good enough reason alone to watch this very mid-nineties erotic Sci-Fi/horror but I found the whole movie enjoyable, far better than the current.3.3/10 scores suggests. Talking about Britt to a potential love rival Ed tells him "She's a big girl, I think she knows what she can handle.." - surely an unintentional double entendre, ha ha.

The acting and plotting of this film is just plain boring and pretty terrible. If, however, you like to see Pamela Anderson's fantastic body (I do, but it doesn't make a film), then you'll get something out of this. The T&A is highly enjoyable, but ultimately this film feels pointless and uninteresting. 2/10.

Actually, I though Pamela Anderson was the worst thing (OK, except for eye-appeal...) about it. Her character would be a throw-away except for the gratuitous nudity. Lord, the story wasn't great, but it would have had more continuity without her. Oh yeah, the picture on the video box has nothing to do with the movie ... big surprise?

I'm willing to bet hard money you picked this up for the same reason I did. I mean they weren't too subtle telling us why we should give 'Naked Souls' a go. You just have to sit thru a b-movie plot reminiscence of 'Freejack' involving the transferring of mind into another person's body to get to the good stuff with Pamela Anderson.

There's no denying she looked great sans clothes back in 1996 and ultimately it's what saves this flick from being unwatchable. Brian Krause gets to play the young scientist who comes up with this tech. Pam is his girlfriend. While David Warner plays the rich old benefactor who supplies him with cash and has an ulterior motive to get closer to his work. Dean Stockwell puts in a quick, rather pointless appearance.

There's a half-baked serial killer angle attached which allows for the sight of more female nudity, but it never goes anywhere being barely built up. 'Naked Souls' doesn't have a story or characters worth talking about at length. It does however supply what you came for in the end allowing Pam to go topless and get felt up twice looking great.

The sci-fi/suspense flick "Naked Souls" was too busy focusing on the naked women including Pamela herself instead of focusing on the sci-fi/suspense and the storyline action. Talented veteran Brit actor David Warner is the most highlight as the dying, sinister mad scientist (again!) who transfer his soul to her genius boyfriend whose soul was totally infected and turn Warner into a serial maniac. An actor like David Warner shouldn't waste his good talents in this piece-of-porno type crap of movie!!!! This movie is like one of the other Playboy videos of Pamela Anderson spotlights, well better stick with her movie "Barb Wire"!

...is the best part of a movie is truly scary, but there it is. She and Brian Krause roll around naked, while David Warner and Dean Stockwell do the best they can to save this turkey. However, the basic plot is mediocre at best: even a better actress (meaning...well just about anyone, except maybe Anna Nicole Smith) and Sir John Gielgud would have had their work cut out for them making anything out of this plot.

Seeing the name Pamela Anderson (or Alyssa Milano) on the back of a video box invariably means b-grade trash. The question is is it GOOD b-grade trash or not? Hard to say with this one. If mad scientists, techno shamanism, a serial killer, thought transference and plenty of naked babes (including the delectable Justina Vail) sound like your scene, then check this one out and make up your own mind. I can't say it'll end up in my top ten, but I found it suprisingly watchable, and it costars DAVID WARNER. Nuff said. Just imagine how cheesy and fun this is going to look in twenty years time!

I used to refer to Pam as "Dead Parrot Anderson" (a comment on her acting abilities), until I realised that this was an insult to the parrot in the Monty Python sketch, which was a FAR better actor.

I think Pam's breasts are displayed in the first 4 minutes of this film - if this film was meant to be "erotic" in some way, there could at least have been some buildup to the sex scenes.

Some more characterisation so that we could have a little interest in the people (up & coming artist, with brilliant but pre-occupied scientist boyfriend, lecherous "friend" after the girl - surely the scriptwriter could have done a little more with this situation) before Pam reveals all would have gone a long way. I have no objection to such scenes if they are really part of the plot, but here they were quite irrelevant.