The Stud (1978) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

"I can review that film in two notes, Wink":

Joan Collins.

It's one of those films based on a Jackie Collins book, starring Jackie's older sister, Joan. Like everything else featuring Joan in the 70s and 80s, she was essentially playing Alexis on Dynasty (which, in turn, was probably herself).

Although she played the femme fatale, Joan was at least 45 years old in this movie. That's based on her official birth year of 1933. Only the Lord knows her correct birth year, or even her correct birth century. The 20th is the best guess, but is by no means a certainty. You have to be a bit suspicious because her first glossies were shot by Matthew Brady.

That's quibbling on my part, though, because she looked sexy enough, and was shot in soft focus, so she photographed about the same as she did when she was 30, assuming that photography had been invented by that time.

But I digress.

I learned something very important from this film. Remember how everyone thought London was so swinging back then? It turns out that only about 25 people were having fun. No matter which club people went to in this movie, the same two dozen people were dancing. It would have been better for the audience if they had been good dancers, but they did seem to be having fun.

Collins plays the decadent wife of a rich, boring businessman. She chooses a handsome young man to be her personal stud. She trains him to behave in society, and mainly to fuck and suck, and she supports him in lavish style. In return for her largesse, she expects him to service her 24/7. Stud-boy is tired of this life. In fact, he's downright miserable, so he is trying to figure out how to get out of the arrangement.

{SPOILERS} Collins's husband figures out what is going on, cuts Collins off penniless, and sends some thugs to beat the snot out of Stud-boy {END SPOILERS} I guess the big dramatic point is that The Stud gets beat up for something he didn't want to do in the first place. That is supposed to be ironic and all, but if you think about it, he endured one beating, and was then free of Joan Collins for a lifetime.


  • Joan Collins - T&A
  • Minah Bird - T&A
  • Emma Jacobs - breasts
  • Sue Lloyd - breasts
  • Full frontal nudity from the usual blonde lesbo chicks who are in the swimming pool in all Joan Collins movies
  • Felicity Buirski shows her breasts
  • Oliver Tobias shows his buns

Well worth it, in my opinion.

In terms of the chronology of the characters' lives, this is the prequel to the cinema classic The Bitch. It takes place earlier, and was made before the other film. Collins plays the same character in both movies. While that other Collins film is rated a bitchy 2.6 at IMDb, this one is rated a studly 2.8. To help you see that in perspective, Police Academy 6 is rated 2.7.  If these two Joan Collins films had enough votes, they would be rated the 30th and 41st worst movies of all time at IMDb.

There are two reasons why this film is slightly better than The Bitch:

Region 2 DVD info from Amazon UK

  • no features, no widescreen

  • disk also includes The Bitch

1) The story has no merit, and is still padded out with many minutes of disco dancing, but unlike The Bitch, this film is comprehensibly edited.

2) This film uses real disco hits instead of songs that sound similar to major songs from the era. The sound track of The Stud is pretty much Disco's Greatest Hits, so they didn't have anything of much merit left when they made The Bitch.

The Critics Vote ...

  • no reviews online

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even 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. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). 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. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is a D+. Close to a C-, but no cigar. Not enough skin to be a skin flick, not enough of a story to be a real movie.

Return to the Movie House home page