I bought this film on DVD from the pound shop for, yes, one WHOLE English pound. I was drawn into making the purchase due to the pictures of naked women on the back and thought the film would be good for a laugh with my mates. I was right. "Sexual Roulette" makes the film sounds rather intriguing, but the version I bought was under the alternate title "weekend in Vegas" which is I feel rather dull in comparison, but for a pound I wasn't going to complain. The film itself contains some awful performances from the actors and actresses involved, the best among them is probably the Michael Douglas-esqe (well he looks a bit like him here) lead character of Jed played by Tim Abell, who goes from angry, to horny, to angry/horny all within a few moments. The plot is a bit "indecent proposal" type and has plenty of poorly filmed sex scenes, but the most annoying thing is that the whole film is just clogged up with pointless shots of Las Vegas, the same ones repeated over and over again!! it seems to me like they finished the film and it only ended up at around 40 minutes long so they just got some aerial shots of the strip to fill the gaps. There is some far fetched storyline about debt and some people get killed but this is just a low budget film which is good for a laugh at its expense. I recommend this film be watched whilst drunk. I think there a load of copies left at the pound shop....

I make a minor hobby out of finding bad films that are based on clever ideas. Oddly, soft core has many of these. I suppose it is because the genre supports many folks who have talent and are "just waiting." Gary Graver is an interesting case, someone who worked with Orson Welles when he really was trying to do something cool. So cool in fact it was probably impossible and certainly beyond what an audience could read anyway.Here we have the standards: fake sex, fake boobs, fake acting and all. But we have a character that looks like Orson. And we have a Wellesian construction: a fabricated circumstance for amusement about a fabricated circumstance for amusement. Both are combined with caprice. The Welles character is the driver of events but in a twist we discover he really works for the viewer-voyeur. And then, and then, in the final analysis we have the result as an idea for a film, presumably the film we see. And around we go.I wish I could say that the cinematography was as intelligently rooted. But we do have some competent conscious-shifting: a gravel-sweep to the right but with an annoying sound rather like canvas bags pushed on sandy concrete.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

I liked the movie very much. Wonderful girls. Beautiful view of Las Vegas, a very interesting plot and the extraordinary presence of Gabriella Hall which is the perfect woman for me(beautiful, expressive,sexy,young and very good actress).I recommend this movie for a lot of fun !!!!

As standard direct-to-video erotica goes, this film isn't bad, but remember, these films aren't about the plot or the acting, but about the flesh. Let's face it, if you're truly looking for a good movie, then you KNOW from the title that this isn't likely to be the answer. So a movie like this comes down to what you think of the appearance of the female leads (sexist, but true). For me, Tane McClure looked old and tired and plastic, just like she always does. But Gabriella Hall made the movie bearable, for she is simply drop-dead gorgeous, with a stunning body and a face to match. I'd apologize for the superficial review, but that's what these movies are all about. They're all about liking what you see, since the writing is rarely good enough for you to like what you hear.