UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Thriller >

Naked Souls

Naked Souls (1996)

May. 18,1996
|
3.3
|
R
| Thriller Science Fiction

Edward is busy trying to unlock the secrets of reading and recording people's thoughts. He is very involved with his work leaving little room for girlfriend Britt. Longstreet comes along and offers Edward a place to do his research and have unlimited funding. There are, however, ulterior motives as Edward is also somehow unlocking the secrets of eternal life.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Red-Barracuda
1996/05/18

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.

More
vincentga
1996/05/19

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!

More
DJ FILMS
1996/05/20

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.

More
Ta'Lon
1996/05/21

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.

More