As I expressed when this films was nominated for DYK, the article is little more than a coatrack for discussion of the lawsuit but contains hardly any referenced text about the movie itself. Expansion of the film's cast, production, and other sections would go a long way toward alleviating this concern. - Dravecky (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I think that the article contains enough detail (although more would be welcome) to avoid allegations of coatrack. It's also quite entertaining to have an entry with such a great title... Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 15:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Somebody needs to clean up the "Plot" section. It's horribly written. I tried to, but ran into snags because I have not seen the movie, and so I abandoned the attempt. Applejuicefool (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
This is a parody film, right? Because the plot is so preposterous (clerical drug ring) that it wouldn't have even gotten the greenlight in the exploitative-heavy 1970s. Why did any of the actors sign on to this disaster? Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
