Rachel's Angels


by Brainscan

Rachel's Angels is said to be written and directed by Rachel Elizabeth. Written? Really? No one says a mofoing word. Bunch of gals, most of them silicone sisters, get rid of their clothes and wriggle around a whole lot. So WTF did she write? Words of encouragement? The address of the plastic surgeon who did her boob job? A post-it note on the fridge they all used during the taping? I am confused.

So why did I bother reviewing this thing? It has a mess of nekkid  Hefmates. Got Audra Lynn and Divini Rae and Ava Fabian...all of whom have done a film or two...and Heather Carolin. And then there is Sheila Levell and Jamie Hammer, who've also did some acting of a sort.  Elizabeth Kelly and Rachel Elizabeth fill out the list of strippers and wigglers. Audra was impressive, Divini was divine and the underused Heather was yummy. The others I could have taken or left. Rachel had a couple of explicit gynocam views. Everyone else was restrained in that department.

Ava Fabian's appearance was unwise. She must have been 45 when this thing was filmed. Once upon a time, 20 years ago, she was a spectacular beauty and there are times in this disk you can still see the wonders of her face. She has kept in great shape but, boys, she is old by anyone's definition and the skin and the bod just aren't what they used to be. I kept thinking of Chris Rock's comment about Janet Jackson's Super Bowl malfunction - a 20-yr-old tittie? That's everybody's tittie. A 40yr-old tittie? That's just your man's tittie. Ava should keep hers under wraps except for her man.

Divini Rae was Hefmate for Dec 2003.  She is said to be the first Alaskan woman with a staple in her navel and, according to Wikipedia (aka, the source of all knowledge) her real name is Divini Rae Sorenson.  In Rachel's Angels she uses the name Micah Miller.  In addition to this disk and a few Mystique DVDs she has played recurring characters in cable series Hotel Erotica Cabo and The Erotica Traveler.  Her website claims she is Howard Stern's favorite Hefmate, apparently because she got away from the tame stuff that Hef throws our way and launched herself into some very revealing stuff posing for Suze Randall and then for her own website.  Divini had aftermarket equipment already installed when Rachel's Angels was made but in the year or so since that time the first enhanced pair was replaced by a set of mega Jumbo Jacks.  Too frickin bad.  The gal is a beauty with an exuberant body, complete with a caboose to melt the heart. She is more than a bit too zaftig for my tastes but she has the right equipment to keep most lads very interested.

This is the fourth Peach DVD I have reviewed and maybe it's time to draw some general conclusions. From the perspective of someone who goes through a disk frame-by-frame I can see three things go into making a first-rate DVD:

1) Lots of great looking gals;

2) Competent filmmaking skills. You know, lighting and framing and all that sorta stuff you learn in a film course at your local junior college;

 3) DVD rendering that compresses the whole thing so that motion chatter and all that sorta mess is missing.

In that context, Peach gets the first part dead right and the last two dead wrong. In disk after disk and scene after scene, the lighting sucks and the cinematographic skills are nonexistent. Must of us did a better job filming Christmas morning. And then all of us who try it do a way better job making DVDs than these bozos. They screw up so often and results in such an egregious result that you gotta figure the people at Peach just don't give a flying fuck. Don't care about the product, don't care about the audience. 

Too bad. Because their disks could be contenders. Instead, they are just bums. Face it, Charlie, they're just bums.


* no widescreen

* no features







No reviews online




n/a IMDB summary (of 10)
  (not enough votes for a score)


Straight to video


  • See the main commentary.

Web www.scoopy.com

Our Grade:

If you are not familiar with our grading system, you need to read the explanation, because the grading is not linear. For example, by our definition, a C is solid and a C+ is a VERY good movie. There are very few Bs and As. Based on our descriptive system, this film is a:


Some positives, especially in the quantity and quality of the women employed, but too many negatives to be worthwhile.