Guilty Pleasure No. 116: Girl Series (by Kevin J. Taylor)

Posted on May 10, 2026 by Arleigh

Girl by Kevin J. Taylor: Taboo Erotica That’s Pure ’90s Id

As a collector of comics of all kinds during the ’90s and early aughts, Girl was one of those titles relegated to the adult section of the comic book store—I can attest that many teens eyed that area with reverence and anticipation for the guilty pleasures awaiting them. Most would be disappointed with the stuff on those shelves, but Taylor’s comic series was not one of them; for good or ill, it drew people in like a magnet. The comic gained a wider audience when released by NBM Publishing in 1999, but comic fans knew of this series much earlier when it had been self-published by Taylor during the early ’90s.

It stars “Girl,” this busty dancer-turned-witch who kicks off the fun at the Cloven Hoof occult shop and her gig at the Kat Kat club, where her moves accidentally unleash horny hellspawn. Across its run, the project is made up of two volumes of the mainline Girl title and several spin-offs and related books, including Rule of Darkness, Co-Ed Diaries, Body Heat, Kama Sutra, and others, which together expanded the series into a larger adult-comics universe. Across these volumes, it’s all lust-fueled peril, and yeah, this review’s diving into why some see it as liberating pulp heaven while others call it a hot mess of outdated tropes.

Girl’s deal is simple but addictive: she’s slinging spells and poles, calling up demons for kinky romps that go sideways fast. Early books like the debut hit hard with quick chaos, then you get Body Heat packing erection-themed shorts, Rule of Darkness going full occult gloom, and the Second Coming trilogy ramping up to orgy-apocalypses. It’s got that Tales from the Crypt meets Penthouse vibe—grimy city nights bleeding into fiery underworld hookups—keeping things pulpy without pretending to be deep lore.

On the “artistic freedom” side, Taylor just lets it rip, with Prince emerging as a huge influence on the character designs—the artist himself channels a deep fascination with the musician, using his sleek likeness and glam swagger as the base for many male characters, while Girl struts as an avid Prince fan herself. Girl’s no victim; she starts the pacts, outsmarts devils, and owns her body like a boss, which felt super rebellious back when comics were getting all sanitized. The black-and-white art? Killer—curvy shadows, dynamic spreads of tentacle tangles and mid-air ecstasy that scream Frazetta pin-ups with a naughty twist. The series was mostly in black-and-white art in the first 10-15 years but soon transitioned to full color in the 2000s. Fans ate it up as a no-holds-barred fantasy zone, where exaggerated boobs and bad puns (“demonically delicious!”) were just part of the campy fun, echoing Heavy Metal‘s glory days.

But flip the coin, and it’s not just leaning into what critics see as perpetuating racial and sexual stereotypes—it’s also pushing the sort of extreme pornography that had American suburbia up in arms, with the series causing further controversy due to its treatment of organized religion which only fed the outrage from that crowd. The sexual stuff cranks stripper tropes to eleven, with Girl and sidekicks like Jill (Part-Time Lover) as walking wet dreams, consent blurring in demon romps that mix peril with nonstop explicit action.

Demons often play the exotic, hulking “other” with dark skins and primal urges chasing pale flesh, hitting cringey colonial fetish notes alongside graphic tentacle play and orgies that made PTA moms freak—think full-frontal infernal excess way beyond tame T&A, all while mocking holy symbols, clergy, and sacred rituals in ways that had church groups seeing red. Not outright hateful, but that combo of lazy shorthand, boundary-smashing smut, and anti-religious jabs made it feel regressive instead of edgy, sparking real backlash in the buttoned-up ’90s heartland.

Taylor’s visuals carry the load, no doubt. Rule of Darkness nails shadowy ritual vibes with flames licking curves, Body Heat‘s shorts flex his anatomy game without going full cartoon, and Second Coming ties it into bigger stakes. Monochrome keeps it intimate and gritty, though the hyper-proportions can tip into caricature, and repetition sets in by later volumes like Body Heat 2.

Girl stands as a vivid ’90s time capsule, capturing an era of unrestrained excess before cultural sensitivities tightened. Advocates for artistic freedom argue that its stereotypes and provocative content serve as exaggerated satire, offering an unfiltered outlet for taboo fantasies; critics counter that it reinforces harmful tropes while thrusting shocking imagery into the face of mainstream discomfort. Taylor’s independent spirit is evident throughout, influencing contemporary erotic webcomics, though the series ultimately compels readers to weigh its bold expression against its problematic elements.

The series itself, which began as a backroom, self-published adult comic and then gained a wider audience during the late ’90s and early aughts, has returned to its early roots as Taylor has resumed self-publishing via online crowdfunding. Pros: raw, unfiltered energy and drool-worthy art. Cons: shallow plots, iffy ethics, and those dated vibes. Girl is guilty-pleasure nitro—dive in if you’re game, but don’t say I didn’t warn ya about the demons.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 115: The Beast Within (dir. Philippe Mora)

Posted on May 7, 2026 by Arleigh

The Beast Within (1982), directed by Philippe Mora, is one of those strange, sticky relics of early ’80s horror that feels like it crawled out of a drive-in double feature and just kept mutating long after the credits rolled. It’s not a good film—let’s just get that out of the way early—and it barely qualifies as a coherent one, but it lands squarely in that fascinating gray area where failure and ambition collide. This is the kind of messy, overstuffed genre hybrid that earns its reputation less through quality and more through sheer, stubborn weirdness. It’s got ambition in odd places, tonal swings that don’t quite land, and a sincerity that almost convinces you it knows what it’s doing. Almost.

What makes The Beast Within so compelling is how aggressively it borrows from exploitation cinema without ever fully committing to being exploitative in tone. All the raw ingredients are here: sexual violence, grotesque bodily transformation, cannibalistic undertones, grave robbing, demonic suggestion, and generational curses. It’s like Mora raided the entire playbook of grindhouse staples and tried to stitch them together into something resembling a prestige Southern Gothic drama. The result is a tonal contradiction that becomes the film’s defining trait. You’re watching material that, in another context, would lean hard into sleaze or pulp sensationalism, yet here it’s played with a stiff, almost theatrical seriousness.

The film opens with one of its most infamous sequences—a brutal assault in the woods by something that is distinctly not human. It’s uncomfortable, lurid, and feels like the start of a much nastier film than what ultimately unfolds. Seventeen years later, the child born from that attack begins to change, physically and psychologically unraveling as something monstrous pushes its way to the surface. From there, the narrative spirals into a hazy blend of small-town mystery, family melodrama, and creature feature chaos, with buried secrets clawing their way into the present.

There’s a clear attempt to elevate all of this with Southern Gothic sensibilities. The setting leans heavily into decay and repression—sweltering air, crumbling structures, and a community weighed down by unspoken sins. Characters behave as if they’ve wandered in from a Tennessee Williams play, all strained emotions and suppressed truths, but the film keeps undercutting that mood with bursts of grotesque horror. It’s an awkward balancing act that never quite works. If anything, the material might have been better served by leaning into something closer to a Joe R. Lansdale tone—meaner, pulpier, and more self-aware—rather than reaching for a kind of literary weight it can’t sustain.

Still, what keeps The Beast Within watchable—sometimes even oddly engaging—is how seriously everyone takes it. Ronny Cox and Bibi Besch play the parents with unwavering commitment, treating the story as a straight drama about a family unraveling under impossible circumstances. Their performances don’t wink at the audience or acknowledge the absurdity creeping in around the edges, and that refusal to break tone actually works in the film’s favor. It creates a strange tension where the more ridiculous the plot becomes, the more grounded the performances try to keep it.

Paul Clemens, as the afflicted son Michael, is tasked with carrying the film’s most extreme elements, and he does what he can within the limits of the material. His performance is less about subtlety and more about physical deterioration and panic as his body betrays him, but he sells the desperation well enough to keep things from completely falling apart. When the transformation finally takes center stage, the film dives headfirst into full-on creature horror, complete with practical effects that are equal parts impressive and absurd. They’re messy, tactile, and unmistakably of their era—exactly the kind of thing that feels right at home in a late-night grindhouse slot.

And then there’s L.Q. Jones as Sheriff Poole, who shows up like icing on top of this bizarre, overcooked cake. Jones brings that weathered, lived-in presence he honed across decades of Westerns and genre films, and he slips into this decaying Southern setting effortlessly. There’s a quiet authority to his performance that helps ground the film, even when everything else is threatening to spiral into nonsense. He doesn’t overplay the role or try to elevate it beyond what it is, but his presence adds a layer of credibility that the film desperately needs. It’s like he wandered in from a more confident, self-aware movie and decided to play it straight anyway, and somehow that makes the chaos around him feel just a little more intentional.

Visually, Mora leans into atmosphere when he can, giving the film a hazy, humid texture that reinforces its Southern Gothic aspirations. The town feels insular and vaguely cursed, like it’s been rotting from the inside out long before the events of the film begin. There are moments where the imagery and tone almost align into something genuinely evocative, but they’re fleeting, quickly swallowed up by the film’s inability to maintain a consistent identity.

That lack of cohesion is ultimately what keeps The Beast Within from being anything close to a good film, but it’s also what makes it linger in your mind. It’s constantly shifting—family drama one minute, body horror the next, then veering into supernatural mystery without warning. That unpredictability gives it a kind of scrappy energy, like it’s trying to reinvent itself scene by scene. Most of those attempts don’t quite land, but they’re rarely dull.

What’s surprising is the film’s underlying sincerity. For all its exploitation trappings, this isn’t a cynical or lazy effort. There’s a genuine attempt here to grapple with themes of inherited trauma, guilt, and the inescapability of the past, even if those ideas get buried under layers of monster makeup and narrative clutter. That earnestness creates an odd charm, making it easier to forgive the film’s many missteps.

In the end, The Beast Within sits comfortably in guilty pleasure territory. It’s not something you’d point to as an overlooked gem, and it certainly doesn’t rise to the level of a true grindhouse classic, but it has all the markings of one. It’s messy, uncomfortable, tonally confused, and packed with more ideas than it knows what to do with—but it’s also strangely compelling because of that. Not great, not even good, but just effective enough in flashes to make the whole experience worthwhile. It’s the kind of film that sticks with you less for what it achieves and more for how bizarrely it tries.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 114: Death Race (dir. by Paul W.S. Anderson)

Posted on May 1, 2026 by Arleigh

Death Race (2008) is the kind of movie that feels like it was engineered in a lab specifically to test how much nonsense an audience will tolerate as long as things explode every ten minutes. Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, a filmmaker whose entire career seems built on the philosophy of “style over literally anything else,” the film doesn’t so much tell a story as it barrels through one at full speed, flipping off logic, subtlety, and occasionally even coherence along the way. And yet—this is the annoying part—it works. Not in a “this is a good film” sense, but in that grimy, late-night cable, “I probably shouldn’t be enjoying this as much as I am” way.

The premise is pure pulp: in a dystopian future where the economy has collapsed (because of course it has), prisons have turned into profit-generating entertainment hubs. The main attraction is the Death Race, a gladiatorial car battle where inmates drive weaponized vehicles and murder each other for the amusement of a bloodthirsty audience. Jason Statham plays Jensen Ames, a wrongfully convicted ex-racer forced to step into the role of a masked legend named Frankenstein. It’s as blunt and ridiculous as it sounds, and the movie never once tries to elevate it beyond that. There’s no pretense of social commentary that isn’t immediately undercut by another machine gun turret popping out of a car hood.

Anderson directs the whole thing like he’s permanently hopped up on energy drinks and early 2000s music video aesthetics. The camera is constantly moving, cutting, shaking, and occasionally losing track of what’s happening entirely. Action scenes are edited within an inch of their life, creating a sense of chaotic momentum that’s exciting in the moment but completely disposable five seconds later. It’s visual junk food—greasy, loud, and weirdly satisfying even when you know it’s terrible for you.

A huge part of why Death Race remains watchable—arguably the biggest reason—is the decision to cast Jason Statham in the lead. This is exactly the kind of role his entire screen persona was built for, and the film leans on that heavily. Statham doesn’t bring depth or complexity, but he brings something more valuable here: credibility. You believe he can survive this world. You believe he can drive, fight, and endure the endless barrage of chaos being thrown at him. In a movie this dumb, that kind of grounding goes a long way. Swap him out for a less naturally commanding actor, and the whole thing probably collapses under its own stupidity.

That’s not to say he’s delivering some kind of nuanced performance. He isn’t. He operates in that familiar Statham mode—minimal dialogue, maximum scowl, and a constant sense that he’s two seconds away from breaking someone’s arm. But that simplicity works in the film’s favor. He becomes the one stable element in an otherwise unhinged movie, a human anchor that keeps the madness from drifting into outright parody. The choice to center the film around him is one of the few decisions here that feels genuinely smart, even if everything surrounding it is chaos.

Then you’ve got Joan Allen, who plays the prison warden with a level of icy commitment that almost tricks you into thinking the movie has something deeper going on. She treats the Death Race like high art, which is both hilarious and oddly effective. There’s a strange tension between her seriousness and the film’s inherent stupidity that gives Death Race a bit more texture than it probably deserves. She’s acting in a better movie that doesn’t exist, and somehow that makes this one more watchable.

But let’s not kid ourselves—this is not a good film. The characters are paper-thin, the dialogue is aggressively functional, and the plot moves forward with the grace of a sledgehammer. Emotional beats land with a dull thud, and any attempt at stakes is drowned out by the next explosion or metal-on-metal collision. It’s the kind of movie where you can predict every major turn five minutes in advance and still not care because you’re too busy watching a car fire a missile at another car.

What makes Death Race oddly compelling, though, is how completely it commits to its own stupidity. There’s no wink to the audience, no self-aware humor trying to soften the edges. It plays everything straight, which paradoxically makes it feel more honest than a lot of “so bad it’s good” movies. It’s not trying to be clever or subversive—it just wants to show you armored cars smashing into each other while people scream and things explode. And on that level, it absolutely delivers.

There’s also something weirdly nostalgic about it. It feels like a relic of a very specific era of action filmmaking, where grit meant desaturated colors, shaky cameras, and protagonists who communicated exclusively through clenched jaws and short sentences. It’s pre-Mad Max: Fury Road, pre-the current wave of more thoughtfully constructed action cinema. Death Race exists in that awkward middle ground where filmmakers had access to bigger budgets and better effects but hadn’t quite figured out how to use them with any real finesse.

And yet, despite all its flaws—or maybe because of them—it’s entertaining. Not in a “this is a masterpiece” way, but in that guilty pleasure sense where you’re fully aware of how dumb it is and still having a good time. It’s a film that succeeds almost accidentally, powered by sheer momentum and a refusal to slow down long enough for you to think too hard about what you’re watching.

In the end, Death Race is a mess. A loud, clunky, overedited mess with delusions of intensity and a complete disregard for nuance. But it’s also a perfect example of a movie that’s entertaining despite itself. It shouldn’t work, and on paper, it really doesn’t. But between the explosions, the ridiculous premise, and—crucially—Statham’s perfectly calibrated presence, it finds a groove and sticks to it. You don’t respect it, you don’t admire it—but you kind of enjoy the hell out of it anyway.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 113: Cherry (by Larry Welz)

Posted on April 29, 2026 by Arleigh

In the sprawling, often grimy landscape of underground comics, few characters have managed to carve out as distinct—or as controversial—a niche as Cherry, the perpetually eighteen-year-old protagonist born from the mind of cartoonist Larry Welz. Originally debuting in 1971 under the moniker Cherry Poptart, the character became a fixture of counter-culture erotica, eventually settling into a self-titled series that would span decades. Welz’s work was instrumental in helping to usher in the vibrant, anarchic underground comics movement in San Francisco during the tumultuous social and political landscape of the 1960s and 1970s. Engaging with Cherry today is an exercise in complex appreciation; it is the definition of a “guilty pleasure,” a work that exists at the intersection of satirical wit, overt hedonism, and a stylistic homage to the quintessential American comic book aesthetic.

At the core of the series’ appeal is the striking contrast between its visual presentation and its mature, often raunchy subject matter. Welz famously adopted an art style that directly mirrored the work of Dan DeCarlo, the legendary artist who defined the iconic look of the Archie comics. By utilizing the clean, “happy teenager” lines of mid-century Americana—often associated with the wholesome, classic adventures of Riverdale—and infusing them with unrestrained, sex-positive, and frequently explicit content, Welz created a powerful visual dichotomy. This deliberate juxtaposition of a quintessential teen comic aesthetic with an adults-only narrative creates a jarring, transgressive experience that makes the work particularly effective as a guilty pleasure. There is an undeniable, subversive thrill in seeing character designs that evoke the innocent charm of Betty or Veronica placed in scenarios that would have sent the strict mid-century Comics Code Authority into a tailspin.

The character of Cherry herself is a fascinating, if problematic, focal point. Defined by her insatiable curiosity, liberal attitude, and complete lack of inhibitions, she is less of a traditional narrative character and more of an agent of chaos who wanders through various high-school-adjacent tropes. Because she remains eighteen, the series avoids the weight of traditional character growth, opting instead for an episodic format where the pleasure is derived entirely from the immediate situation—be it a pop-culture parody, a bizarre social commentary, or a sexual escapade. While the series is categorized as erotica, to dismiss it solely as such is to overlook the sharp satirical edge that occasionally pokes through the panels. Fans of the underground and transgressive culture scene often point out that Cherry frequently served as a vehicle for Welz to comment on the broader socio-political zeitgeist of the era. By utilizing the “anything goes” freedom of the underground press, the series tackled issues and social norms that mainstream comics dared not touch, masking biting critiques within its provocative and irreverent framing.

This thematic depth, however, exists in tension with the repetitive nature of the stories. As a guilty pleasure, the series relies on a specific cadence: the setup of a conventional trope, the predictable introduction of sexual absurdity, and the punchline. For the dedicated reader, this repetition is comforting and familiar, but it is also the source of the series’ main weakness. There are moments where the narrative feels like it is running on fumes, and the reliance on sexual shock value can feel stagnant compared to more modern or structurally daring indie comics. Furthermore, admitting to enjoying Cherry in a contemporary landscape is complicated by how the series has—or hasn’t—aged. Much of the humor and the treatment of gender dynamics feel firmly rooted in the specific, often male-gaze-dominated world of mid-century underground comix.

Consequently, it is a work that requires a reader to compartmentalize; one can admire the historical significance of Welz’s contribution to erotic art and the audacity of his stylistic parody while simultaneously acknowledging that the execution of certain themes feels archaic. This is why Cherry remains a quintessential guilty pleasure. It does not aim for the lofty aspirations of a graphic novel masterpiece, nor does it try to serve as a beacon of progressive morality. Instead, it succeeds as a piece of “low-brow” entertainment that is proud of its own transgression. The inclusion of guest work, such as a rare script by Neil Gaiman in Cherry Deluxe, highlights that the series was often respected within its own subculture as a legitimate, if edgy, playground for creative expression.

Looking back, the series acts as a testament to the “anything goes” ethos of the underground press era. While there are certainly other adult-oriented comics that might offer more robust character arcs or sophisticated storytelling, few manage to balance the specific blend of nostalgia, irreverence, and raw, unapologetic hedonism that defines the Cherry universe. It is a series that invites the reader to lean into the discomfort and find humor in the sheer absurdity of the scenarios. For those who enjoy exploring the fringes of comic history, Cherry remains a vital, if occasionally flawed, artifact. It represents a time when comics were a battlefield for free speech and a canvas for uninhibited adult fantasy. As a guilty pleasure, it holds up because it never pretends to be anything other than what it is: a fun, slightly reckless, and undeniably bold experiment in the possibilities of the medium.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 112: Food Wars! (Shokugeki no Soma)

Posted on April 26, 2026 by Arleigh

Food Wars is one of those anime that feels like it should be ridiculous on paper, but somehow turns that absurdity into part of its charm. Across its five seasons, it blends intense cooking battles, over-the-top reactions, and shameless fan service into a series that is equal parts culinary hype machine and anime guilty pleasure.

What makes Food Wars stand out right away is how seriously it treats food while never taking itself too seriously as a show. The cooking scenes are loaded with detail, and the anime clearly loves showing off the textures, colors, and techniques behind every dish. Even when the plot gets wild, the series keeps circling back to a genuine appreciation for cooking, competition, and creativity, which gives it more heart than you might expect from an anime known for clothes literally exploding off people after a good bite.

Anyone who has grown up watching the high-octane drama of Iron Chef—whether the original Japanese production or the iconic American version on The Food Network—will feel right at home with the structure of this show. Much like those classic programs, Food Wars relies on a foundation of thematic ingredient requirements, ticking clocks, and an intense panel of judges waiting to dissect every flavor. The “Shokugeki” battles, or culinary duels, capture that same competitive spirit where a single secret ingredient or a daring last-minute pivot can be the difference between legendary status and total failure.

One of the most defining aspects of the series is how it effectively gamifies the entire culinary experience, turning every kitchen session into a high-stakes arena. The show treats cooking like a complex strategy game where each ingredient choice acts as a tactical move and every technique serves as a power-up. This framing forces the audience to view food not just as sustenance, but as a weapon or a defense, making the act of creation feel as tense and strategic as a combat sequence in any traditional action series.

This competitive spirit extends directly into the tasting sequences, which are arguably the most iconic parts of the entire five-season run. When a judge takes a bite, the show transforms the experience into a sensory battleground where the flavors represent different forces, emotions, or even elemental powers that clash on the palate. By turning flavor profiles into visual and psychological challenges, the show ensures that tasting isn’t just about appreciation—it is a judgment call that defines the character’s growth, pride, and survival in the cutthroat atmosphere of Totsuki Academy.

At the center of it all is Souma Yukihira, a protagonist who is easy to root for because he is confident without feeling smug. He is the kind of main character who thrives on pressure, and the show uses him well as an engine for momentum. Every challenge becomes a chance to watch him improvise, adapt, and push himself in a way that keeps the series moving fast. He is not some brooding genius or chosen one; he is just a stubborn, talented cook who wants to prove himself, and that makes the whole competition structure more fun.

The supporting cast is a big reason the anime works as well as it does. Erina starts off as icy and intimidating, but the series gradually gives her more depth, letting her grow beyond the “judge with a famous tongue” gimmick into someone with real emotional weight. The Polar Star Dorm crew adds a lot of personality and warmth, giving the story a sense of community that balances out the cutthroat tournament energy. Even when the show leans into exaggerated comedy, the characters usually feel distinct enough that their rivalries and friendships stay entertaining.

One of the show’s biggest selling points is obviously the fan service, and Food Wars does not pretend otherwise. It uses exaggerated reactions, dramatic body language, and suggestive imagery as a kind of visual shorthand for how amazing the food tastes. That approach is part joke, part spectacle, and part stylistic identity. For some viewers, that is the whole appeal; for others, it is the thing that makes the anime hard to recommend without a warning label. Still, the series is self-aware enough that the fan service feels tied to its outrageous personality rather than just being randomly thrown in.

The first season probably captures the show’s identity best because it still has that fresh mix of school-life fun, cooking creativity, and escalating rivalry. The early arcs feel energetic and focused, with each battle building on the last and giving the cast room to establish who they are. As the series moves forward, it gets more dramatic and more tournament-heavy, which is both a strength and a weakness. On one hand, the stakes rise and the clashes feel bigger; on the other, the show can start to feel like it is repeating its own formula with just enough variation to keep going.

By the middle seasons, Food Wars becomes more polished in some ways and more excessive in others. The food presentation remains impressive, and the battles often feel like mini sports dramas, but the storytelling starts to lean harder into anime logic, rival schools, overblown power scaling, and increasingly ridiculous cooking showdowns. That is not necessarily a bad thing, because the whole series is built on heightened reality, but it does mean the emotional impact depends a lot on whether you are fully onboard with the show’s specific brand of chaos.

The final season is where opinions tend to split the hardest. Some viewers feel it loses the magic and becomes more generic battle shounen than cooking anime, while others still see it as a satisfying enough conclusion that keeps the core spirit alive. There are still character moments worth caring about, especially around Souma and Erina, and the show does try to give the story a proper sense of closure. Even so, it is hard to ignore that the later stretch does not hit the same high point as the earlier seasons, especially when the novelty of the format starts wearing thin.

What keeps Food Wars from collapsing under its own absurdity is that it genuinely understands the appeal of competition. The anime is about food, yes, but it is also about pride, craft, ambition, and the need to prove yourself through skill. That gives it a surprisingly strong backbone underneath all the comedy and fan service. When it is working at its best, the show makes cooking feel like a high-stakes art form, where one meal can define a relationship, a reputation, or a future.

In the end, Food Wars is the kind of anime you watch because you want something loud, stylish, and a little indecent, but you stay because it actually cares about the process of cooking and the people doing it. It is messy, exaggerated, and sometimes way too horny for its own good, but that is also why it sticks in your memory. Across five seasons, it delivers a strange but effective mix of genuine culinary admiration and total anime nonsense, and that combination is exactly what makes it such a recognizable cult favorite.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 111: Out for Justice (dir. by John Flynn)

Posted on April 17, 2026 by Arleigh

Out for Justice is the kind of movie that leans so heavily on its star’s ridiculous swagger that it stops being merely bad and ridiculous and becomes entertaining in a “can’t‑look‑away from the car‑crash” sort of way. It’s not a polished or especially sophisticated action film, but it has a rough, gleefully over‑the‑top energy that makes it a perfect guilty pleasure, the kind of early ’90s action crime movie that works less because of craft and more because of attitude, bruises, and sheer confidence.

At its core, Out for Justice is a revenge story so simple it barely bothers pretending to be anything else. Steven Seagal plays Gino Felino, a Brooklyn cop chasing the man responsible for his partner’s death, and the plot mostly functions as a chain of excuses to send him from one grimy neighborhood stop to the next, collecting broken noses and wounded pride along the way. That stripped‑down structure is part of the movie’s charm, because there’s no attempt to dress it up with complicated twists or emotional depth; it’s all forward momentum, all hard stares, all macho problem‑solving by fist and elbow.

One of the things that gives Out for Justice its off‑kilter charm is how every actor in the cast seems to have read the script as an invitation to extremes. Performances swing violently between scenery‑chewing over‑the‑top theatrics and barely‑there, almost sleepwalking subtlety, with almost nothing in the middle. Either you’re shouting, staring down suspects inches from their faces, or you’re slouched in the background mugging in silence. It shouldn’t work, but the sheer imbalance in energy somehow makes the film feel like a live wire instead of a flat ’90s programmer.

Nowhere is that more obvious than with William Forsythe’s villain, Richie Madano, who plays the role so far “out there” that it’s hard not to wonder if he was actually on a lot of coke like the character was written to be. He leans into every sneer, every twitch, and every unhinged stare until he starts to look less like a character and more like a walking drug‑induced nightmare. There’s a manic, unpredictable edge to his performance that makes him feel genuinely dangerous, even when the dialogue around him is pure tough‑guy parody. It’s a kind of commitment that could easily tip into self‑parody, but Forsythe owns it so completely that he ends up grounding the film’s madness instead of derailing it.

What really makes Out for Justice memorable is how fully it leans into Seagal’s absurd screen persona. He’s at his best here when he’s acting like a man who believes every room belongs to him, and that attitude gives the movie a weird, shameless energy that a lot of his later work lacked. Even when the dialogue is clunky or the Brooklyn swagger feels more imagined than lived‑in, Seagal’s self‑serious delivery turns the whole thing into a performance art piece of tough‑guy certainty. The film is unintentionally funny at times, but that only adds to the appeal, because it makes the movie feel even more like a relic from a time when action stars could be gloriously excessive without irony.

The action is the main draw, and this is where Out for Justice earns most of its reputation. The fights have that satisfying, bone‑crunching roughness that makes the violence feel tangible instead of slick, and the movie keeps finding excuses to escalate from intimidation to outright brutality. Seagal’s style here is less flashy than some of his contemporaries, but that works in the film’s favor because the choreography has a mean, close‑quarters edge to it. The result is a movie that often feels like it’s trying to win by sheer stubbornness, and honestly, that suits it perfectly.

There’s also a strong sleaze factor running through the whole thing, and that’s another reason it works as a “bad but good” movie. The neighborhoods feel dirty, the criminals are exaggerated to the point of cartoonish menace, and the film’s idea of atmosphere is basically to keep everything sweaty, smoky, and angry. Forsythe’s villain, in particular, leans so extravagantly into that sleaze that he ends up giving the film a properly nasty center. A lot of the supporting characters are basically there to be insulted, questioned, or thrown into a wall, but the movie gets enough mileage out of that rhythm that it never really becomes boring.

Still, there’s no reason to pretend Out for Justice is secretly elegant. The script is thin, the character work is mostly functional, and the movie often feels like it was assembled to move from one confrontation to the next as efficiently as possible. Some of the scenes drag, and the film’s macho posturing can wear thin if you’re not already in the mood for this kind of energy. It also has that peculiar Seagal‑era problem where the movie wants him to be a street‑level man of the people, but the character sometimes comes across more like a self‑mythologizing neighborhood warlord than an actual human being. That disconnect is part of the fun, but it is still a disconnect.

What keeps Out for Justice from becoming a throwaway is the confidence behind the nonsense. It feels like a movie made by people who believed that attitude could substitute for sophistication, and in this case, they were mostly right. The pacing may be uneven, the story may be paper‑thin, and the acting may veer into laughable territory, but the movie never loses its nerve, and that gives it a strange kind of integrity. It doesn’t apologize for being dumb, and that unashamed commitment is exactly why it has aged into cult‑status entertainment instead of disappearing into the pile of generic action forgettables.

That’s why Out for Justice works so well as a guilty pleasure. It’s violent, ridiculous, and very much stuck in its own macho time capsule, but those flaws are inseparable from the appeal. The movie’s “bad but good” vibe comes from the way it accidentally becomes bigger and funnier than it likely intended, while still delivering enough real action‑movie satisfaction to justify the ride. It’s the kind of film that invites eye‑rolling and cheers in almost equal measure, and that balancing act is what makes it such a durable little cult object.

In the end, Out for Justice is not a masterpiece, and it doesn’t need to be. It’s a bruised, swaggering, over‑confident slab of early ’90s action cheese that knows how to sell its own nonsense with just enough force to make it lovable. To borrow from film reactor EOM Reacts (who is hilarious, by the way), “This whole movie screams cocaine.” If you want clean storytelling or nuanced performances, it will probably frustrate you. If you want a hard‑edged, trashy, surprisingly watchable Seagal vehicle that embodies the “bad it’s good” spirit—including a cast that either chews every morsel of the scenery or fades into the wallpaper—Out for Justice hits the mark.

Also, be on the look out for a quick cameo of Kane Hodder (who played Jason Voorhees for many of the franchise’s many sequels) as a gang member and for Dan Inosanto (teacher to Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris) as a character named “Sticks.”

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 110: Undercover Brother (dir. by Malcolm D. Lee)

Posted on April 5, 2026 by Arleigh

Undercover Brother is exactly the kind of movie that earns the phrase “guilty pleasure.” It is messy, broad, and often ridiculous, but it is also packed with enough energy, attitude, and sharp-enough satire to make its flaws feel like part of the joke rather than dealbreakers. The result is a comedy that may not always land cleanly, but it absolutely understands its own vibe and commits to it hard.

At the center of it all is Eddie Griffin, who gives the title character a big, swaggering, old-school cool that carries the movie through its shaggier patches. He plays Undercover Brother as a throwback spy hero with a giant Afro, loud fashion sense, and nonstop confidence, and that exaggerated persona is a big reason the film works as well as it does. Griffin’s performance is not subtle, but subtlety is not really the point here; he sells the movie’s cartoonish energy without making it feel lazy.

What makes Undercover Brother more than just a random parody is how committed it is to poking at both blaxploitation iconography and mainstream spy-movie clichés. The film was directed by Malcolm D. Lee and written from material based on John Ridley’s earlier animated series, and it leans into that satirical roots-and-gadgets formula with a lot of style. It clearly wants to be playful, but it also wants to say something about race, image, and the way Black identity gets packaged or watered down in pop culture.

That said, the movie is not exactly a model of precision. Some of the jokes are sharp and immediate, while others feel like they are still revving the engine long after the punchline should have arrived. The plot is basically an excuse to move from one set piece to another, and the film knows it, which helps, but it also means the whole thing can feel more like a high-speed sketch comedy than a fully shaped story. If you go in expecting airtight narrative logic, you will probably be annoyed; if you go in wanting a fast, funky send-up, you will have a much better time.

The supporting cast gives the movie a lot of its flavor. Dave Chappelle, Aunjanue Ellis, Billy Dee Williams, Chris Kattan, Denise Richards, and Neil Patrick Harris all add to the film’s chaotic mix, and the casting itself becomes part of the joke. Billy Dee Williams especially feels perfectly placed in a movie that is constantly riffing on cool, style, and old-school charisma, while Denise Richards gets a knowingly exaggerated role that plays into the film’s cartoonish battle between seduction and resistance.

What helps Undercover Brother age a little better than some early-2000s comedies is that it is not just throwing random nonsense at the screen for cheap laughs. There is a genuine satirical target here, and even when the movie gets clumsy, it still feels like it has a point of view. The movie clearly aims to be both goofy and observant, and even when the balance is uneven, it is hard not to appreciate the effort.

The best thing about Undercover Brother is its attitude. It moves like a movie that wants to be loud, stylish, and a little bit too much, and that confidence gives it a strange charm. The humor is often broad, sometimes cartoonish, and occasionally uneven, but the film’s willingness to fully commit to its bit makes it easy to forgive a lot. Even when the satire is more enthusiastic than elegant, the movie keeps its foot on the gas, and that momentum is a big part of its appeal.

Its biggest weakness is also the thing that makes it memorable: the movie can feel overstuffed with ideas, references, and gags, some of which work better than others. A few jokes feel a little dated now, and the film’s style of satire is not always as clean or as clever as it seems to think it is. Still, the movie has enough bite, personality, and goofy confidence that those rough edges become part of its charm instead of sinking it. That is the hallmark of a true guilty pleasure: you can see the flaws clearly, but you keep smiling anyway.

So Undercover Brother is not a perfect comedy, and it is not trying to be one. It is loud, silly, politically aware in a very pop-movie way, and shamelessly committed to its own funk. If you want polish, you will find plenty to criticize; if you want a movie with attitude, quotable energy, and the kind of swagger that makes its imperfections oddly lovable, this one delivers. It is a flawed satire, sure, but it is also a genuinely fun one, and that is why it still plays like a guilty pleasure worth revisiting.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 109: SST — Death Flight (dir by David Lowell Rich)

Posted on April 1, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1977’s SST: Death Flight, we follow a supersonic jet as it makes it’s maiden flight, going from New York to Paris in just three hours. Not surprisingly, there’s an “all-star” cast waiting for the plane to take off.

Regis Philbin appears as the reporter who breathlessly covers the excitement at the airport. Lorne Greene plays the owner of the jet who is staying behind in New York. Burgess Meredith is the plane’s designer. Robert Reed is the hard-driving pilot. Peter Graves is a businessman who is surprised to see that his former secretary (Season Hubley) has boarded the plane with her stick-in-the-mud fiancé (John De Lancie). Doug McClure is a disgraced pilot who will also be on the flight. Billy Crystal is a bowtie-wearing flight attendant. Bert Convy is the PR man who is traveling with his pregnant mistress (Misty Rowe). Martin Milner, Tina Louise, Susan Strasberg, they’re all on the flight! Finally, there’s a epidemiologist (Brock Peters) who is transporting a box that contains a sample of the Senegal Flu. Now, you might question why anyone would transfer a sample of a highly infectious disease that has a 30% fatality rate on a commercial flight and that’s a good question.

Unfortunately, a disgruntled executive (George Maharis) tries to sabotage the plane, which leads to an explosive decompression that causes the Flu box to burst open. Uh-oh, people are getting sick! And now, Paris refuses to let the plane land in their city because they don’t have time to set up a quarantine. London, however, is willing to let the plane land at one of their airports. However, London hasn’t finalized their quarantine plans so there’s a chance that landing there could lead to British people getting sick.

Brock Peters suggests that they land in Senegal, which already has a quarantine going on. When it is reasonably pointed out that the plane might not have enough fuel to make it to Senegal and that everyone, including those who are not sick, might die in the resulting crash, Martin Milner gives a speech about morality and demands that all of the passengers agree to further risk their lives by going to Senegal. John de Lancie argues for London.

And you know what?

Watching the film, I agreed with John de Lancie. De Lancie points out, quite correctly, the no one on the airplane knew that they were going to be traveling with a deadly disease, that London is preparing a quarantine even while the plane is in flight, and that it’s unfair to demand that everyone on the plane agree to possibly die in a horrific crash. We’re supposed to really hate de Lancie’s character but he makes sense!

The passengers and crew vote 3 to 1 to go to Senegal.

And, of course, the plane crashes.

“Did we do the right thing?” Susan Strasberg asks.

Well, the plane crashed. I think that kind of answers your question.

Some survive and some don’t. The epidemiologist survives without a scratch on him and somehow, no one in the film ever gets mad at him. Seriously, though, what was he thinking bringing his deadly disease samples on a commercial fight!?

Why is this a guilty pleasure? Well, first off, it’s a terrible movie but the cast is full of so many familiar faces that it’s hard to look away. Just the casting of Peter Graves in a “serious” disaster film about an airplane makes this a guilty pleasure. Secondly, the film is the epitome of both the 70s and the disaster genre. The supersonic jet can break the sound barrier but it still looks incredibly tacky. I’m surprised it didn’t have shag carpeting.

Finally, there’s a moment where Bert Convy tells his pregnant girlfriend, “Don’t worry.”

She replies, “That’s what you said last time and look what happened!”

Convy looks straight a the camera and shrugs.

Best guilty pleasure ever!

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 108: Interspecies Reviewers (Ishuzoku Rebyuāzu)

Posted on March 20, 2026 by Arleigh

What really nudges Interspecies Reviewers into “guilty pleasure” territory is the production’s split personality. On one hand, it’s shamelessly explicit for a late‑night TV anime; on the other, it’s structurally tight and surprisingly imaginative with its worldbuilding. The fantasy ecosystem is treated almost like a handbook of interspecies compatibility: differences in mana, lifespan, physiology, and even perception of age all factor into how each reviewer scores their night out. You’ll get a gag about the dragon girl’s overwhelming presence right next to a mini‑lecture on why fairies have extremely strict size limitations for their patrons. That blend of horny premise and nerdy specificity makes it feel like your group chat’s “what if” jokes got adapted into a full production.

There’s also the whole meta layer: Interspecies Reviewers was so out there that major distributors and broadcasters backed away from it, dropping or canceling its run because of how far it pushed explicit content for television. For a modern TV anime to get pulled partway through its broadcast is rare, and that notoriety quickly became part of the show’s identity. Just knowing that multiple networks balked at it adds to the sense that you’re watching something you’re not “supposed” to be watching—always a potent ingredient in guilty pleasure status.

The humor, crucially, is broader than just “look, boobs.” A lot of the jokes revolve around how absurdly bureaucratic and normalized sex work is in this world, from porter guilds hauling review sheets across the land to rival reviewers trying to torpedo or inflate ratings. There’s even an incubus critic who takes offense at the main crew’s negative scores and starts leaving his own glowing reviews, only for his swagger to be cut short by a vengeful lover. Moments like that reframe the series as a raunchy workplace comedy disguised as fantasy porn: everyone has opinions, everyone’s hustling, and nobody’s as objective as they pretend.

None of this magically elevates Interspecies Reviewers into high art, but it does make the show a lot more watchable than its reputation suggests. The episodic structure gives it a breezy, “one more episode” pacing; you always want to see what weird race or gimmick they’ll tackle next. The scoring boards at the end of each brothel visit become their own running joke, with wildly varying ratings, petty commentary, and the occasional self‑own when a character realizes their kink is not shared by anyone else in the party. It’s almost like a fantasy version of Anthony Bourdain crossed with late‑night cable: travel to a new spot, experience the local flavor, then sit around and compare notes over drinks.

All that said, this is exactly the sort of series most people will feel weird admitting they enjoyed. The explicit content isn’t a light garnish; it’s the central axis of every single episode. There’s no serious emotional through‑line to hide behind, no grand plot twist, no lofty theme you can trot out to justify the time investment. It’s just well‑executed trash: unapologetically focused on sex, gleefully juvenile in its punchlines, and willing to go places that many “edgy” shows only flirt with. Even fans who praise it often do so with qualifiers, acknowledging that it’s “kind of weird” while admitting it’s hot, funny, or unexpectedly creative.

That tension—between embarrassment and enjoyment—is the core of why Interspecies Reviewers works as a guilty pleasure. One side of you rolls your eyes at how lowbrow the premise is, yet the other side recognizes that the show is actually doing some clever things with subjectivity, fantasy biology, and the review culture we live in. You can’t really defend it in polite company, and you probably won’t see it on anyone’s “Top 10 Must‑Watch Anime for Beginners” list, but you also might find yourself remembering specific gags, species breakdowns, or character reactions long after you’ve finished it.

So, is Interspecies Reviewers good? In a conventional sense, maybe not. In the “I had more fun with this than with half the safe, respectable shows in its season” sense, absolutely. It’s crude, controversial, and brazenly fixated on its own niche, but it’s also surprisingly consistent, inventive with its setups, and genuinely funny if you’re on its wavelength. That combination of shame and amusement, of “I really shouldn’t be enjoying this” tangled up with “but I kind of am,” is exactly what makes Interspecies Reviewers one of anime’s purest modern guilty pleasures.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 107: Ironwood (by Bill Willingham)

Posted on March 15, 2026 by Arleigh

Bill Willingham’s Ironwood is the sort of graphic novel that lives in the uneasy space between bawdy escapism and unexpectedly thoughtful worldbuilding, making it a quintessential guilty pleasure that some readers insist on treating as near–high art. It is at once shamelessly pornographic and surprisingly committed to telling a coherent sword‑and‑sorcery story, which means your mileage will depend heavily on whether you can accept explicit sex as an integral—often dominant—part of the narrative rather than a tacked‑on indulgence.

Published by Eros Comix in the early 1990s, Ironwood ran for eleven issues and was later collected into two trade paperbacks that have acquired a minor cult status among fans of erotic fantasy comics. The premise follows Dave Dragovon, a juvenile dragon who appears entirely human because he has not yet matured into his full draconic form, as he is hired by the beautiful and cursed Pandora Breedlswight to seek out the wizard Gnaric and break the spell on her. It is a familiar quest hook—hero, sorcerer, cursed damsel—but Willingham uses it as a loose scaffold on which to hang an almost nonstop parade of sexual encounters, bawdy gags, and bursts of fantastical incident.

As a narrative, Ironwood is better than its reputation as “porn with plot” might suggest, though that label is not entirely unfair. The story is consciously serialized in the classic fantasy‑adventure mode: Dave and Pandora move from one locale to another, encountering wizards, monsters, political schemes, and rival factions, all while the central quest to undo Pandora’s curse gives a sense of forward momentum. Various readers have pointed out that there is genuine political intrigue and thought given to motivations, and you can see Willingham testing out the sort of layered plotting and character dynamics he would later refine in Fables, even if here they are wrapped around mandatory explicit scenes. There are moments when the story is engaging enough that the sex almost feels like an interruption, a dynamic Willingham himself has reportedly acknowledged when noting that fitting in each issue’s required sex scene could break the flow.

Tonally, the book leans heavily into adult humor, but it is not mean‑spirited. The jokes range from clever wordplay and situational comedy to unabashedly adolescent gags, the sort that make you groan even as you recognize they fit this world of oversexed dragons, lecherous wizards, and magically enhanced perversions. In this regard, Ironwood is very much a product of its era: a 1990s underground/alt sensibility that treats fantasy tropes and sexual taboos with the same irreverent shrug. When the humor lands, it gives the book a disarming charm, but when it doesn’t, the dialogue can feel like an overlong dirty joke that mistakes sheer explicitness for wit. Still, there is a lightness here—especially in Dave’s reactions and the deadpan absurdity of certain magical mishaps—that keeps the series from tipping into grim or exploitative darkness, despite its plentiful kinks.

Visually, Willingham’s art is the most persuasive argument for why some readers champion Ironwood as something more than disposable smut. His linework is clean and expressive, with a confident sense of anatomy, staging, and page composition that gives both the action and the erotic scenes a fluid, readable rhythm. The fantasy settings are detailed without being cluttered; taverns, towers, and mystical landscapes all feel like lived‑in spaces rather than generic backdrops for sex scenes. The character designs, especially Pandora and the various magical oddballs, show a cartoonist relishing the chance to exaggerate physicality and personality in equal measure, which goes a long way toward making these figures feel like characters rather than mere bodies.

That said, the erotic content is not merely frequent—it is foundational, and that is where Ironwood becomes a textbook guilty pleasure. This is an unabashedly hardcore series: explicit sex acts, imaginative uses of magic for sexual purposes, and sequences that leave nothing to implication. Devices like a hydra‑head spell repurposed so a character can pleasure multiple partners at once are emblematic of the book’s gleeful “power perversion potential,” embracing the logic of a sex‑obsessed Dungeons & Dragons campaign. For readers comfortable with that premise, there is an undeniable energy in the way Willingham integrates erotic spectacle into battles, spells, and negotiations; for others, the same material will read as juvenile, repetitive, or simply exhausting.

Reception among those who have sought out the collected volumes tends to be surprisingly positive, with many praising Ironwood as one of the rare “sex comics” where the story can stand on its own, even if stripped of the explicit content. Fans often note the balance between story, humor, and eroticism, arguing that the plot is engaging enough that the sex becomes a bonus rather than the sole reason to read. This is where the “high art” argument creeps in: within certain circles of fantasy and underground comics readers, Ironwood is celebrated as an early sign of Willingham’s strengths as a writer and artist, and as an example of how erotic comics can pursue worldbuilding and character arcs rather than simple vignettes. Yet that enthusiasm coexists with acknowledgment that, without the sex, this would largely be a light, sometimes flimsy adventure—a fun romp, but not a lost masterpiece of the medium.

In a broader context, Ironwood sits at an interesting crossroads in Willingham’s career and in the evolution of adult comics. Knowing his later mainstream success, you can see how this early project let him experiment with long‑form storytelling, recurring cast chemistry, and a blend of mythic and mundane concerns, all while operating in a corner of the market that gave him almost total creative freedom. That creative freedom is both the book’s greatest strength and its biggest barrier to entry: it delivers exactly the kind of unfiltered fantasy‑erotica hybrid it promises, but that same purity of purpose locks it firmly into the realm of niche appetite.

Ultimately, Ironwood is best approached with clear expectations and a sense of humor. As a graphic novel, it is technically accomplished, often funny, and occasionally more narratively ambitious than its reputation suggests, which explains why some fans will defend it as a minor classic of erotic fantasy comics. At the same time, its relentless explicitness, adolescent impulses, and lightweight core plot mark it firmly as a guilty pleasure—one that knows exactly what it is and never pretends otherwise, even as a devoted subset of readers insists on elevating it to the status of “high art.”

Previous Guilty Pleasures