The First Nudie Musical (1976) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Here's what the box says:

In this outrageously hilarious spoof that has become a cult classic, a desperate young filmmaker tries to rescue his studio by making a porno musical! You've never seen anything quite like this as the elaborate style of a '30s musical is mixed with contemporary tackiness, producing riotously risque showstoppers. Long before "South Park" was doing dirty ditties, "The First Nudie Musical" was pushing the boundaries of taste to new extremes. Filled with toe-tapping musical numbers such as "Lesbian Butch Dyke," "Orgasm," "Perversion" and the classic "Dancing Dildos," and more nudity than you can shake a stick at, "The First Nudie Musical" has it all--a hotshot producer (Stephen Nathan), his wisecracking secretary (Cindy Williams), a bumbling director (Bruce Kimmel), scheming investors, a prima donna leading lady (Alexandra Morgan), a Cuban spitfire (Diana Canova) and a group of aspiring actors struggling to make a movie musical against all odds.

Well, it was a great idea ...

The cast of the offbeat softcore film did include Cindy Williams (Shirley from Laverne and Shirley) and future ace director Ron Howard. They didn't get naked. Opie's role was a cameo, but Williams is the star of the film. Even though it's a nudie musical, she doesn't get naked, and she doesn't sing.

    ...   Why? I don't know. You tell me.


Star Alexandra Morgan shows it all, as do bit players Joy Full and Jane Ralston. About a half dozen unidentified chorus girls follow suit.

I actually saw this when it first came out, back in the last great days of the drive-in movies. I was disappointed then, and I'm still disappointed. This movie could have been a funny spoof of porn. It could have been raunchy fun, ala Flesh Gordon. It could have had some edge. It succeeded at none of those things. The most accurate word I can use to describe it is "quaint". My second choice would have been "amateurish".

The level of humor is sub-adolescent. Examples:

"Gentlemen, we can all be millionaires". "Yeah, but can we make any money?" (Wouldn't you love to ask the writer why he thought that was funny?)

"Are you willing to perform in the nude?" "Sure, as long as I don't havta take my clothes off"

"Can you sing some scales?" "Sure. (Singing) Scales! Scales! Scales!"

"Thank you, Mr Schekler" "That's Schlechter!" (Repeat 100 times, or more as needed.)


Pretty funny stuff, eh?

DVD info from Amazon

Commentary by Cindy Williams, Stephen Nathan, and Bruce Kimmel
Commentary by writer/co-director Bruce Kimmel and Nick Redman
Includes free CD soundtrack (quantity limited to first pressing of DVDs only)
"From Dollars to Donuts: An Undressing of The First Nudie Musical" documentary (55 min.) with optional audio commentary by Bruce Kimmel, Nick Redman, and Michael Rosendale
Deleted scene (The Plumber Scene) with optional audio commentary
Deleted musical number (Where Is a Man?) with optional audio commentary
Photo gallery
Widescreen anamorphic format, 1.78:1

I regret to say that those lines were better written than performed, hard though that may be to believe, or even to conceive. Not one single person in the film can act, sing, or dance well enough to qualify for a high school musical.

On the other hand, "quaint" does have it charms, and the film has developed a small cult following. The dildo dance is silly. There is plenty of female frontal nudity. (And some male as well). And there is really nothing else quite like it. It is interesting to watch as a sample of the way we were, and the way we had just barely enough sense not to be.

"Gotta sing, gotta dance

While Im taking off my pants"

The Critics Vote

  • no major reviews on line

The People Vote ...

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C-. It may not be good, but it is unique. I'd say it is probably in the category of "amusingly awful". It may be worth a look if you want to see something odd.

Return to the Movie House home page