Susan's Plan (Dying to get Rich)

First of all, it centers around cold-blooded murder for profit, and we follow the story of the murderers. The victim is barely seen, but we are led to believe that he deserved to die. Huh? Killing a guy we don't know isn't exactly as involving as college kids getting harmless revenge on the incredibly malicious Dean Wormer. This is creepy.
Second, the comedy leads aren't Tim Matheson and John Belushi. Nope, they are those two well-known comic cut-ups Billy Zane and Nastassja Kinski. Man, the laughs never stop comin' when those two are around. That Zane, what a jokester! WTF? I guess Manson was in prison and they wouldn't let him out, so they had to get Zane.

NUDITY REPORT

There are a lot of nude and sex scenes. They are in crappy light, shot from silly angles, or pass by too fast, but there are a lot of them. Kinski's topless scene is so dark you can barely see. Boyle's doggie-style scene with the doctor is about 10 frames in dark light, over before you know it. Boyle's bath scene is entirely in motion, so she's out of focus in the still captures. Thankfully, Boyle's scene with the victim does show her off quite well. Christina Venuti is also seen topless.

DVD info from Amazon.

Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1
no meaningful features

Third, the level of humor involves too many people hiding in a closet and one of them farts. And you thought the Algonquin round table represented the apex of sophisticated wit!
Fourth, when the movie ended, I thought they were kidding. The credits started rolling and I reversed to see if I missed anything. Then I forwarded to see if there was more after the credits. Nothing. It just seems to end in the middle of the movie.
Fifth, all the main characters that we have been following (one minor exception) end up either brutally slain by gunfire or in prison awaiting the electric chair. There's some wacky comic genius at work, eh? Those people that don't get killed for real get killed in enactments of dream scenes.

By the way, Lara Flynn Boyle, as a bimbo-for-hire, really is pretty funny in this, but she didn't get much support.

The Critics Vote

filmcritic.com 2/5

Rotten Tomatoes summary. Six articles on file

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDB readers say 5.5/10

with their dollars ... straight to Cinemax in the USA, but was shown theatrically in 51 countries.

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 D. Not a very good or original premise. Not very funny.