SuzetteAndrea First, I would like to comment to the jerk who said this film was "porn". It is NOT porn, and if you were ANY kind of man, you'd know that. Have you seen porn before little boy? If so, then you'd know this is not one of them. It is simply called NC17 Rated NOT X, which means simulated sex and nudity. No actual real sex going on here, son. As for myself in doing this type of film, this was the first and only film that I did of this sort, which is neither bad nor good, it just is. Sometimes being in Hollywood, you come across films like these that offer you money when you keep putting your groceries on your credit card, and therefore, they don't seem so bad at the time. They aren't bad, just not great type of films that you wouldn't take your child to, by any means. As far as the acting is concerned, when you are acting in such films as these, they give you the script at times THAT DAY or maybe (if you're lucky) a day or two ahead of time, therefore, the actors are scrambling to memorize and get to know their characters in any way what so ever before filming begins. Third, it is unnerving to have 20 to 30 crew members watch you and try to make anything believable when the producers themselves simply want to make a "quick" film and be done with it. So, don't judge, jerk-off, unless you've been there yourself and you've been in Hollywood and you've scraped for your meals and you know what it's like to struggle. Considering the little amount of time these films are written, memorized, and produced, this is one of the better ones! It's not like normal film making with millions of dollars in budgets where they take 8 to 12 months of filming! You obviously are just a pathetic guy sitting at your computer begging for a bone to be thrown your way. Good luck! And for those of you looking for a film to just hang out with your honey, get a little hot, have some wine, and perhaps not take it so seriously, this is your film! Now go have some fun and thanks for watching! ~Suzette

MissMeggie Porn is good. Porn is fun. Porn is not meant to be a serious film. However, these filmmakers obviously thought this was the little porn that could. One day, some hardcore screenwriter looked at his script and said, "this could be a real movie". And then it was, and things got very, very ugly. Flaws include casting (Suzette Andrea as Denise is utterly unconvincing as someone that could lure a husband from his sexy wife; Michele Perry looks way to old for her husband) and hair and makeup (again, Suzette Andrea has some ridiculous hairstyles). Chief flaw, however, is dialogue. When Denise compares love to a rose to Susan at first one is induced to wonder if she's being sarcastic; when the realization comes that Denise is actually trying to have a serious heart to heart with Susan it is obvious once again that yes, you are watching a glorified porno.

BlackJack_B Once again, Jay Madison mixes up an equal mix of horrible acting and women for another "magnum opus", Illicit Lovers.In a review of Intimate Nights, I forgot to mention that before the film starts, we see scenes from the movie being shown, much like how a T.V. show recaps scenes from a past or future episode. Same thing in this one, too, so you'll have a chance to take a look at the medical disasters that make up the female cast.In a nutshell, the story is about a man who loses his job and his wife decides to rent him out as an escort to her friends and later others. He reluctantly does this while his wife shows her greediness in the money made by prostituting him out. After awhile, she has a change of heart and fortunately for her, the husband is very forgiving and all is well.Although the film has morals and that's something unique in this genre, the film fails in every other category.The women - Michelle Perry is a frighteningly hideous woman. How anyone could think this mutant freak is sexy is shocking. A bad mixture of plastic surgery and bad tanning have disfigured her. Just check out the opening scene where she takes off her bathing suit for Steve Curtis. You won't be turned on, you'll be repulsed. And she looks to be 40 in the film; it's like she and Curtis' character are a May-December couple. The other ladies (including Gabriella Hall) are a bit better, but aren't these films supposed to have more attractive women than the hardcore films.The acting - Perry actually does a decent job, but Steve Curtis is brutal. The males actually seem to do a better job than the females in this category, but not here. Curtis' delivers an annoying, corny, wimpy performance. You'd think he'd be more at home on an episode of "Queer As Folk". Also, the lady at the employment offices is brutal; why the film makers decided someone with a snarky, rude, hate-the-world attitude was a good idea was beyond me? A woman like that would be fired in the real world. Then again, this film was probably set in a Bizarro World version of California...The logic - Like Intimate Nights, some things make absolutely no sense. Why did Curtis' character get fired from his job? The film doesn't even explain it. Was he constantly late? Was he taking longer lunch beaks? Was the son of the boss taking over his post? Did he piss off management? Was he using his bosses' Internet account to view naughty pictures? Why? Obviously, he did something really bad without knowing it, as the boss wanted him out of the office immediately and even hired a thuggish, stereotypical moving man to clear the office for him. The film didn't even explain it. Why couldn't he find another job? It was 1999, wasn't there a boom in the dot-com business? The film just treats his attempts to find another office job as a joke. There wasn't another job like his in L.A., or was this just another reason to explain that this must be a Bizarro World version of L.A.? I suppose Curtis' character was a devout Catholic, which was why he was faithful to his wife, despite her greed and other vices, too. Or perhaps she wore the pants in the household, despite doing nothing but lazing in the sun while he pulled in the paycheques. Just the same stupid logic.All in all, I don't recommend this film. It has nothing to offer. There's better and you know where to find them.

Smooth B Michelle Perry....now there's a name I have to remember. Not only is she beautiful, but she's a healthy girl. Not fat, but just the right amount in all the right places. Now she's got some meat on her bones!Okay, now what was I talking about? Oh yeah, the movie.When a woman's husband (woman played by Michelle Perry) loses his job, his brainstorming wife comes up with an outlandish scheme...."How about I rent you out to my friends for cash?"That's right. She makes her hubby become a gigolo.And she names the business "Rent My Husband, Please." Yep.Now, this is the type of gigolo I'd like to be, if I ever became one! Not the ones who wine and dine the middle-aged spinsters, but the ones who get to sleep with the most beautiful women you've ever laid your eyes on. There's this one girl in there who has a great body and an Australian accent! Wow!Even though many men would kill to be in his position, the poor guy can't keep up. He wants his old office job back. That's when I lost faith in the movie. But who can blame him....his wife becomes a slavedriver, not caring about how he feels. He's just a piece of meat, but to me....that's okay, as long as he still gets to have sex with the hot women.Alas, it doesn't work out the way I wanted it to (i.e. guy leaving wife to become a gigolo full-time...on his own) but at least it was fun while it lasted. Take a good look at it the next time it's on Cinemax.