I once had a plumbing contractor who was in a band on the side and wanted to play at my wedding. It didn't work out for reasons I don't remember, but it was possible his band was really good. Still, this had NOTHING to do with his skills as a plumber. I'd say the same thing about Playboy Playmates who want to be actresses. Some of them are very good at it (two of my favorite 70's exploitation actresses were ex-Playmates-of-the-Year Claudia Jennings and Victoria Vetri). But there is NO connection between having a nice body (and being willing to show it off) and genuine acting talent--as the entire cast of this movie (pretty much all Playboy Playmates) amply demonstrates.
If this portmanteau horror movie DID NOT have an entire cast of ridiculously hot "actresses" (all culled from the pages of Playboy), it frankly wouldn't have been made at all because it's shot on video and has three incredibly lame stories and an incredibly lame frame story where sexy sorority pledges are telling "scary" stories to their sexy older sorority sisters. Strangely, there's very little nudity in this, but that wouldn't matter if the movie was any damn good at all. What's really annoying is the gratuitous NON-nudity--i.e. a sex scene, a bathtub scene, a shower scene that are all completely irrelevant to the plot, but still show nary a nipple! It's like these girls think NOT taking their clothes off, but relentlessly teasing the male audience is going to somehow make them respectable or talented actresses.
It's kind of like if my plumber had played at my wedding, and not only was his band very bad, but he then refused to finish the plumbing job (what he obviously does best), so I'd somehow take him seriously as a musician. No offense, but ridiculously hot Playboy Playmates generally need to stick to Playboy pictorials (or at least softcore porn films where the acting just doesn't matter) and leave the horror films to people who know what they're doing.
