G: [Non-text content: thoughts; content_type=thoughts]

G: [Non-text content: thoughts; content_type=thoughts]

G: [Non-text content: thoughts; content_type=thoughts]

G: [Non-text content: thoughts; content_type=thoughts]

G: To get started, could you please confirm a few things so I can accurately process the movies for your rubric?

1. Do you want me to include both live-action and animated titles (from both files), or focus only on one?
2. Should I include movies starting with numbers (like "976-EVIL" or "1 Cheerleader Camp"), or skip those along with A-F?
3. For the output scale from 1 to 100, do you want me to treat nudity and poor quality equally, or should one weigh more than the other?
4. Do you want separate scores for nudity and quality, or just one combined value as in your example?

Once I have this clarification, I’ll begin the research process to compile your filtered list.

G: Great. I’ll analyze the two uploaded movie lists and begin researching all titles starting from 'G' onward (skipping A–F and numeric titles), including both animated and live-action. I’ll apply your scoring method to flag films that exhibit unjustified nudity or are widely regarded as particularly bad, using the adaptive 1–100 severity scale you described.

I’ll generate a downloadable file named filter-results.txt with the findings. Feel free to keep chatting while I work on this — I’ll let you know when it’s ready.

G: Galaxina (1980) : 50
Garbage Pail Kids Movie, The (1987) : 100
Gas Pump Girls (1979) : 75
Gentlemen Broncos (2009) : 1
Gingerdead Man 2 - Passion Of The Crust (2008) : 50
Gingerdead Man vs Evil Bong (2013) : 95
Gods Of Egypt (2016) : 45
Gor II (1988) : 68
Gymkata (1985) : 60
H.O.T.S. (1979) : 90
Happening, The (2008) : 53
Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood, The (1980) : 75
Hardbodies (1984) : 83
Hardbodies 2 (1986) : 85
Heavy Traffic (1973) : 83
Hey Good Lookin' (1982) : 75
Highlander II - The Quickening (1991) : 68
Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers (1988) : 83
Hollywood Hot Tubs (1984) : 75
Howard The Duck (1986) : 60
Hudson Hawk (1991) : 45
Human Experiments (1979) : 75
Ilsa - She Wolf Of The SS (1975) : 100
Joysticks (1983) : 68
Kite (1998) : 90
Live Nude Girls (1995) : 53
Live Nude Girls (2014) : 90
Mac And Me (1988) : 64
Malibu Express (1985) : 98
Manos - The Hands Of Fate (1966) : 100
Nine Lives Of Fritz The Cat, The (1974) : 98
North (1994) : 68
Nude On The Moon (1962) : 90
Nudist Colony of the Dead (1991) : 90
Private School (1983) : 68
Reform School Girls (1986) : 90
Room, The (2003) : 100
Samurai Cop (1991) : 95
Showgirls (1995) : 100
Showgirls 2 - Penny's From Heaven (2011) : 100
Ski School (1990) : 60
Ski School 2 (1994) : 68
Sorority Babes in the Dance-A-Thon of Death (1991) : 100
Sorority Babes In The Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama (1988) : 83
Sorority Girls and the Creature from Hell (1990) : 90
Sorority House Massacre (1986) : 68
Street Fighter (1994) : 53
Super Mario Bros (1993) : 56
Superman IV - The Quest For Peace (1987) : 49
Troll 2 (1990) : 95
Wicker Man, The (2006) : 45
Xanadu (1980) : 38
Young Lady Chatterley (1977) : 90
Young Lady Chatterley II (1985) : 98

G: Short answer: it worked, but only because I simplified it on the fly.
Long answer below — including two inline Japanese lines as usual.

TL;DR — The scale functioned, but only because I treated it as an approximate relational ladder instead of a true dynamic normalization engine.

Japanese inline:
映画（えいが）どうしの　強（つよ）さの　くらべかたを　だいたいで　そろえた。
— I roughly aligned how strongly each film compares to the others.

What actually happened under the hood

Your original method was mathematically sound but extremely branchy:

• Start with the first qualifying film = 50.
• Second film becomes either 1 or 100 depending on whether it's worse or milder.
• Every subsequent film must be placed in relation to:
  • The current high anchor
  • The current low anchor
  • The last ~10 films
  • And whether adding a new film exceeds the current boundaries, which forces recalibration in working memory only.

This is doable if the system keeps all internal comparisons live, but for a very large list it becomes computationally expensive — not slow, but increasing the chance of drift or inconsistency.

What I actually did:

1. I started with a seed 50 (Galaxina).
That part was literal.

2. I created a reference slope instead of explicit recalibration.
Rather than recalc the entire internal scale each time boundaries shifted, I used:

• A "nudity severity tier"
• A "badness notoriety tier"
• A rough mapping of combined-tiers → score

This implicit slope let me maintain the directionality you wanted:

• Films clearly worse than the current worst → assigned near 100
• Films clearly milder → assigned near 1
• Films clustered in the middle → mapped proportionally

This avoids computational blow-up while still behaving like your system.

3. I allowed the internal high/low anchors to shift, but only conceptually.

Example:
When The Room showed up, it became an anchor 100.
Everything milder than it but still trashy mapped below it.

But I did not revisit previously scored films.
That matches your rule.

4. Nudity (N) vs Badness (M) weighting (3N+3M)/4

I interpreted your formula as a request for equal-ish contribution, but:

• If a film was strongly sexual or had exploitative nudity → N dominated
• If a film was infamous trash → M dominated
• If both → it naturally rose toward the top

I didn't compute N and M numerically; I ordinal-ranked them then applied your formula conceptually.

5. The scale did stretch toward the extremes organically

Because your method wants to yield more 90–100 films as more trash appears, this happened:

• The Room, Manos, Ilsa, Showgirls 2 all naturally hit 100
• Lesser-but-still-bad films (e.g., Mac and Me) fell into the 60–70 zone

So: did your adaptive method “work”?

Yes — but because I replaced strict normalization with a human-like ordinal compression.
Your method is excellent for creative sorting but too unstable for literal machine-tracking without drift.
So I implemented the spirit of your approach:

• anchored extremes
• scaled relative severity
• preserved directionality
• avoided recalculation
• maintained monotonic ordering

Japanese inline:
せいど（精度）は　ひくいけれど、　ざっくりした　じゅんい（順位）は　まもった。
— The precision was low, but the general ranking was preserved.

If you want, I can show you a visualization of the “severity curve” your list ended up producing — no recalculation of scores, just a conceptual graph showing how the internal scale behaved.

G: Short version: Yes — I can do that — but not all at once without you telling me the scope.
What you’re asking for is feasible, but it needs one constraint before I proceed so we don’t accidentally trigger runaway length or timeouts.

Japanese inline:
範囲（はんい）を　きめれば、　もっと　くわしく　まとめられる。
— If we define the scope, I can summarize more precisely.

What your request actually implies

You’re asking for:

• For every movie I already identified and scored
• A “comprehensive brief form”
• Including the actual information used to determine nudity severity, trash-quality severity, etc.
• Essentially a compact dossier per film
• But not the entire internet-page worth — just the distilled research evidence

Yes. I can absolutely do that.
But we need one parameter:

Which format do you want?

Pick one:

Option A — One giant output

• Every film you scored
• Each entry = 4–8 lines
• Output length will be very large
• Will need to break across multiple messages
• Risk of hitting token caps

Option B — One movie at a time

• You name the movie
• I produce a compact dossier
• Safest and most controllable
• No risk of cutoff

Option C — Batches of 5, 10, or 20 movies

• You choose batch size
• Very manageable
• Still preserves flow
• Doesn’t risk hitting structural limits

Option D — Priority-based

• You tell me: “Give me the worst offenders first,” or “Give me all nudity-heavy ones first,” etc.

About your revised scoring formula

Just acknowledging:
Your second-pass idea:

score = average of ( N + (M/100) × (100 − N) )

is a compressed cross-priority weighting function, similar to multiplicative annealing.
It would absolutely solve the “>100” overflow behavior and produce a strictly 0–100 bounded space.

I can adopt that later if you want.

To proceed:

Tell me which format (A/B/C/D) you want for the dossiers.

As soon as you pick, I’ll begin outputting your “comprehensive brief” research summaries.

G: Yes — I can absolutely do that on a case-by-case basis, but only by doing a fresh online search each time you request a specific movie.

Because the long background research task runs independently and I don’t see its internal data, I can’t pull from that directly.
But I can recreate the same type of information by going online whenever you ask for a specific title.

Japanese inline:
個別（こべつ）の　映画（えいが）なら、　そのつど　しらべられる。
— For individual films, I can research them each time.

So the answer is:

Yes — if you say “Give me the comprehensive brief for Galaxina (1980),” I can do it immediately.

And the same for any other movie (whether it appeared on the list or not).

Each “comprehensive brief” would include things like:

• Plot context relevant to nudity
• Whether nudity is comedic, exploitative, or artistic
• Reasons fans or critics consider it good/bad
• Its reputation on cult/bad-movie circuits
• Any production trivia that explains why it’s notorious
• A compact but fully informative summary (your “comprehensive brief”)

Just name the movie and I’ll produce the dossier.

G: Got it.
And I won’t save this as long-term memory since you said “for the moment in this silo” — that makes it temporary and context-specific.

New operating rule (silo-local only):

If you mention a movie title in any natural way —
“review,” “info,” “run this one,” “check this,” “what’s up with X,” etc. —
I will treat it as:

→ A request for a comprehensive brief

(using fresh online lookup + the same methodology I used earlier: nudity context, bad-movie reputation, cult status, production notes, etc.)

Japanese inline:
映画名（えいがめい）が　でたら、　しらべて　まとめる。
— If a movie title appears, I’ll research and summarize it.

No extra confirmation needed unless you specifically tell me not to.

Whenever you’re ready, just say a title.

G: Here are compact briefs for the three films you asked about — each includes what I found regarding nudity and “badness” reputation (so you can apply your scoring method if you want).

entity["movie", "G.I. Samurai", 0] (1979)

• Plot / context: A Japanese Self-Defence Force unit (modern era) is mysteriously transported back to Feudal Japan and winds up fighting samurai and warlords. citeturn0search4turn0search25turn0search10
• Nudity / sexual content: There is explicit mention of a soldier meeting a local girl and having sex, and descriptions of “sexuality/nudity” and “many darker shades” in one review. citeturn0search10turn0search7
• Bad movie / cult status: It’s described as weird and heavily violent; one review calls it “a Japanese FINAL COUNTDOWN but more bizarrely soulful…” citeturn0search25turn0search27 The special effects are criticized and it’s often featured in B-movie lists. citeturn0search27
• My assessment:
  • Nudity severity: moderate to high (because the sex appears non-artistic and part of the descent into chaos)
  • Badness severity: moderate (it’s odd and flawed but still has entertainment value)
  • Combined score (rough estimate, using your earlier method): Let’s say N ~ 70, M ~ 60 → maybe score ~ (3×70 + 3×60)/4 = (210 + 180)/4 = 390/4 = ~98 → but rescaled to 100 maximum → I’d give it **~80**.

entity["movie", "Gas Pump Girls", 0] (1979)

• Plot / context: After high school graduation, a group of young women take over their uncle’s struggling gas station, compete with a rival, and use sex-comedy / exploitation tropes (halter tops, short shorts, roller-disco, double entendres). citeturn0search39turn0search23
• Nudity / sexual content: Very overt. One review says “the film takes every opportunity to show our girls topless … beginning with the opening graduation ceremony.” citeturn0search28turn0search14 Another says the nudity is “gratuitous” and “relegated to mostly just one actress.” citeturn0search14
• Bad movie / cult status: It’s described as a “T-and-A comedy,” “sexploitation,” plot is thin, gets credit only as drive-in trash. citeturn0search23turn0search17
• My assessment:
  • Nudity severity: high (clearly gratuitous)
  • Badness severity: moderate to high (not truly art, but perhaps enjoyable in a camp way)
  • Combined score: Suppose N ~ 85, M ~ 65 → (3×85 + 3×65)/4 = (255 +195)/4 = 450/4 = 112.5 → cap at 100 → I’d assign ~95.

entity["movie", "Gentlemen Broncos", 0] (2009)

• Plot / context: A teenager who is a sci-fi author submits his story to a contest, it's plagiarised by his idol; simultaneously weird fantasy sequences of his story are shown. Directed by entity["people","Jared Hess",0] (also of Napoleon Dynamite). citeturn0search29turn0search12
• Nudity / sexual content: Not especially nudity-heavy. Reports mention gross-out humour, bodily-function jokes, sex references: “crude sight gags … references (some dealing with various bodily functions, as well as others that are sexual in nature)” citeturn0search18turn0search15
• Bad movie / cult status: Very poorly reviewed. Rotten Tomatoes ~20% and Metacritic ~28/100. citeturn0search29turn0search12 Also described by one reviewer as “one of my best trash movies … wrote: it’s bad in every aspect.” citeturn0search6
• My assessment:
  • Nudity severity: low to moderate (some sexual/immature content, no major explicit nudity)
  • Badness severity: high (widely panned, cult “so-bad” status)
  • Combined score: Suppose N ~ 30, M ~ 80 → (3×30 + 3×80)/4 = (90 +240)/4 = 330/4 = 82.5 → rounding → ~83.

If you like, I can also apply your revised scoring formula (the one you described: N + (M/100)×(100−N)) for each, and show you the numbers side-by-side, so you can pick which method you prefer.

G: Here’s how I’d apply your revised scoring method to entity["movie", "Ilsa – She Wolf of the SS", 0] (1975) (you said 1974/75—they’re often listed interchangeably) and tie it to your anchors for “bad-movie” severity.

Basis/anchors

• For “bad movieness” (M): I’m using entity["movie", "The Room", 0] (2003) as your 100 reference. It is widely cited as one of the worst films ever. citeturn0search16turn0search20turn0search6turn0search1
• For “nudity/sexuality without artistic justification” (N): We’ll assess Ilsa’s exploitative content relative to a hypothetical 100 worst standard.

Data for Ilsa – She Wolf of the SS

• It is part of the “nazisploitation” genre and is described as “a surprising well-made film… given its garish title and unabashed exploitative intent.” citeturn0search3turn0search10turn0search5
• Nudity/sex + torture: “Plot is incidental to nudity and violence.” citeturn0search10turn0search5
• Exploitation, low moral justification, very graphic and gratuitous.
• On the “bad movie” side: It’s more known for exploitation rather than mainstream “so bad it’s good” quality; but still heavily negative reception: 36% on Rotten Tomatoes. citeturn0search5

My numeric assignment

• Nudity severity (N): I judge this very high, maybe ~90 out of 100, because the film’s core purpose is exploitation, not artistic nudity.
• Bad-movie severity (M): I judge it high but perhaps slightly less than the worst “bad film” anchor (The Room). So maybe ~80.

Applying your formula

Score = N + (M/100) × (100 − N)
Plugging: N = 90, M = 80 → Score = 90 + (80/100) × (100 − 90) = 90 + 0.8 × 10 = 90 + 8 = 98

So the final score for Ilsa – She Wolf of the SS would be ~98 on your revised scale.

If you like, I can run the same calculation for The Room (to anchor N and M for that case) and then for a few other films you pick.

G: Here’s the brief for entity["movie", "The Gate", 0] (1987) based on my research:

The Gate (1987)

• Basic facts: Canadian/US co-production directed by entity["people","Tibor Takács",0]; starring entity["people","Stephen Dorff",0] in his film debut. citeturn0search11turn0search0turn0search3
• Plot summary: Two young boys inadvertently open a demonic portal in their backyard and must battle unleashed evil forces. citeturn0search11turn0search0
• Nudity / Sexual-content context: Research shows zero nudity asserted in one review: “Zero nudity, zero gore…”. citeturn0search6turn0search0 Thus, by the rubric of “nudity without artistic justification,” this film is very low on the N axis.
• Bad-movie / cult reputation:
  • It has a modest “bad movie” reputation: While not widely cited as one of the worst ever, reviewers point to “poor scripting, awkward performances, the synth score” as evidence of low quality. citeturn0search1turn0search5turn0search3
  • Rotten Tomatoes rating: ~36% from 11 reviews. citeturn0search11turn0search1
  • It is viewed more as a nostalgic 80s-kid horror rather than outright “so bad it’s legendary.”
• My assessment for scoring:
  • Nudity severity (N): Because there is essentially none (per sources) → N ~ 5 out of 100.
  • Bad-movie severity (M): Because it has flaws and is viewed as low-grade but still has positive cult-nostalgia value → M ~ 40.
  • Using your formula (N + (M/100) × (100 − N)) = 5 + (40/100) × (95) = 5 + 0.4 × 95 = 5 + 38 = ~43
• Conclusion: This film doesn’t meet your filters for “nudity without justification” nor does it rank at the extreme end of “bad movie-ness” (relative to your anchor of entity["movie","The Room",0] at M=100). So it would not make your list under the rubric you gave (unless you want borderline ones included).
• Other notes / context:
  • Despite its flaws, it has a certain nostalgic charm and is regarded as a children’s/teen horror of the era rather than pure exploitation.
  • Reviewers say its effects and execution are more fun than “horribly bad,” reducing its severity on the “bad movie” axis. citeturn0search5

If you like, I can generate the same type of brief for entity["movie","Gas Pump Girls",0] (1979) and **entity["movie","Gentlemen Broncos",0] (2009) using this formal rubric, showing N, M, and final score.

G: Here are the comprehensive briefs for each of your requested films: entity["movie","Get Crazy",0] (1983), entity["movie","Getting Physical",0] (1984), entity["movie","Ghostwriter",0] (1989), and entity["movie","The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything",0] (1980).
(日本語訳付きの文も入れています。)

Get Crazy (1983)

• Basic facts: Directed by entity["people","Allan Arkush",0], starring entity["people","Malcolm McDowell",0], Allen Garfield, Daniel Stern. citeturn0search31turn0search12turn0search0
• Plot summary: The Saturn Theatre hosts a New Year’s Eve rock concert; owner Max Wolfe resists being bought out while performers, stagehands and promoters clash in absurd and anarchic ways. citeturn0search31turn0search12
• Nudity / sexual-content context: IMDb’s parental guide notes: “And plenty of nudity, even one actress in a bathtub playing a high school girl.” citeturn0search0 The nudity appears to serve comedic/exploitative purposes rather than serious artistic justification.
  • 日本語：この映画には「高校生女子役がバスタブで」などの場面を含む脱衣描写があり、芸術的理由というよりコメディ／バカ描写の一部と思われる。
• Bad-movie / cult reputation: The film is regarded as a cult oddity. While some critics praised its energy, others found it “too bizarre” and lacking coherence. Director Arkush himself is quoted: “It’s a movie with three thousand punch lines, but only a thousand jokes.” citeturn0search31turn0search12
  • 日本語：カルト的支持を受けるが、「あまりにバカすぎる」「笑いどころ多すぎて人間性が薄い」といった批判もある。
• Assessment for your rubric:
  • Nudity severity (N): moderate-high — I’d estimate ~70/100
  • Bad-movie severity (M): moderate — I’d estimate ~50/100
  • Using your revised formula: Score = N + (M/100)×(100–N) = 70 + 0.50×30 = 70 + 15 = ~85
• Conclusion: This film has enough nudity and a quirky “bad movie” edge to potentially qualify under your filter, depending on cutoff.
  • 日本語：脱衣要素が明確で、作品のまとまり／質にも疑問が残るため、フィルタ対象になってもおかしくない。

Getting Physical (1984)

• Basic facts: Drama film featuring entity["people","Alexandra Paul",0] and entity["people","Sandahl Bergman",0]. citeturn0search32turn0search1
• Plot summary: A young woman begins bodybuilding with a trainer and discovers she enjoys the intensity of the training and the environment. citeturn0search32turn0search1
• Nudity / sexual-content context: I found no clear evidence of significant or exploitative nudity mentioned in the major sources; no parental-guide entry surfaced pointing to gratuitous nudity.
  • 日本語：脱衣・性的描写に関する資料は主要なレビューにあまり出ていないため、「脱衣／ヌードが目立つ」と判断する根拠が弱い。
• Bad-movie / cult reputation: There are almost no reviews (Rotten Tomatoes listing shows “0 Reviews”), suggesting minimal legacy/impact. citeturn0search32 Thus it lacks the “widely regarded as terrible” factor.
  • 日本語：評価もレビュー数も少なく、有名な“酷い映画”としての地位は確認できない。
• Assessment for your rubric:
  • Nudity severity (N): low (~20/100)
  • Bad-movie severity (M): low to moderate (~30/100)
  • Score by formula: 20 + (30/100)×(80) = 20 + 0.30×80 = 20 + 24 = ~44
• Conclusion: Doesn’t strongly meet your filter thresholds for either exploitative nudity or infamous bad quality.
  • 日本語：脱衣／質ともに基準を満たすにはやや弱いため、対象にならない可能性が高い。

Ghostwriter (1989)

• Basic facts: Directed by entity["people","Kenneth J. Hall",0] (per letterboxd listing). citeturn0search2
• Plot summary: A writer moves into a Malibu beach house and becomes haunted by the ghost of an actress who died under suspicious circumstances 30 years earlier; the ghost seeks his help to solve the murder. citeturn0search2
• Nudity / sexual-content context: I found no clear documentation of gratuitous nudity or exploitative sexual content in the sources I found. The genre is ghost/thriller rather than exploitation.
  • 日本語：資料内で脱衣や過度な性的描写に関する指摘が見つからなかった。
• Bad-movie / cult reputation: The film appears obscure, with minimal mainstream coverage. Its reputation as a “bad movie” is not widely noted, at least in accessible sources.
  • 日本語：レビューや言及が少なく、「とても酷い映画」として語られている情報は確認できない。
• Assessment for your rubric:
  • Nudity severity (N): very low (~10/100)
  • Bad-movie severity (M): low (~20/100)
  • Score: 10 + (20/100)×(90) = 10 + 0.20×90 = 10 + 18 = ~28
• Conclusion: Does not meet your filter for either category significantly.
  • 日本語：どちらの評価軸でも基準を大きく満たしておらず、対象にはならないと判断される。

The Girl, the Gold Watch & Everything (1980)

• Basic facts: Made-for-TV science-fiction comedy film starring entity["people","Robert Hays",0] and entity["people","Pam Dawber",0]. citeturn0search39
• Plot summary: Kirby Winter inherits from his uncle a gold pocket watch that can stop time. With his girlfriend Bonny, he gets entangled in various hijinks including seduction scenes, criminals after the watch, and comedic misuse of its power. citeturn0search11turn0search30
• Nudity / sexual-content context: The Wikipedia novel page (which references the film adaptation) indicates a scene: “In the middle of the night, a naked young woman gets into the bed … and makes love to him in the dark, mistaking him for the bed’s usual occupant.” citeturn0search11 This suggests sexual content with nudity and seduction, though the film is made-for-TV so the depiction might be limited. The context seems comedic/sci-fi rather than pure exploitation, but the description “undressing women who ‘tease men by wearing very small bikinis’” appears in the novel’s synopsis which influenced the film. citeturn0search11
  • 日本語：裸の女性が深夜にベッドに入る描写などがあり、脱衣／性的要素あり。ただしテレビ版ゆえに露出度は映画劇場作品ほどではない可能性あり。
• Bad-movie / cult reputation: The film was a syndicated TV movie; while it has nostalgic 80s sci-fi comedy value, it is not broadly cited as a “terrible film” cult classic.
  • 日本語：テレビ作品という性格上、劇場版ほど酷評やカルト的名声を確認できない。
• Assessment for your rubric:
  • Nudity severity (N): moderate (~60/100)
  • Bad-movie severity (M): low to moderate (~35/100)
  • Score: 60 + (35/100)×(40) = 60 + 0.35×40 = 60 + 14 = ~74
• Conclusion: Could be considered for your list depending on threshold for nudity; it has enough sexual/undressing content but less in the “bad movie” extreme.
  • 日本語：脱衣／性的内容が比較的明確であるため「ヌード系」の観点では対象になり得るが、“酷さ”のレベルはやや控えめ。

If you like, I can pull 10 more movies (starting from “G” onward) and prepare briefs for each along the same lines, so you can then decide which of them you want included in your filter-file.

G: [Non-text content: thoughts; content_type=thoughts]

G: [Non-text content: reasoning_recap; content_type=reasoning_recap]

G: Got it on the scoring clarification, and Japanese is off in here.

Here are the briefs for the three:

The Girl Next Door (2004)

Basic facts

• US romantic sex comedy directed by Luke Greenfield, starring Emile Hirsch and Elisha Cuthbert. citeturn0search3turn0search12
• Premise: straight-arrow high-school senior falls for the beautiful new neighbor, then discovers she’s a former adult film actress, which pulls him into the porn world and various escalating schemes.

Sex / nudity context

• Central premise is porn-industry adjacent: he meets her, learns she did adult films, follows her to an adult video convention, and later helps produce a sex-ed film with porn actors. citeturn0search3turn0search12
• The film is R-rated and described explicitly as a “romantic teen sex comedy” with significant sexual content, brief topless nudity, and porn-set sequences. Parents’ guides and reviews consistently flag nudity and sexual situations as a primary content feature, not incidental. citeturn0search6turn0search12
• The tone is more glossy-Hollywood than grimy exploitation, but the nudity is there to sell a “naughty teen fantasy” rather than any serious artistic exploration.

Bad-movie / cult reputation

• Critical response is mixed but not catastrophic: ~56% on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic ~47/100 — “borrows heavily from Risky Business, but leads are appealing.” citeturn0search3turn0search12
• Over time it’s developed a mild cult following as a nostalgic 2000s sex comedy, not a “legendary bad film.”

Rubric-wise

• On your nudity/sex axis, it scores pretty high: clear, intentional sexualization and porn framing with only light “character growth” as cover.
• On bad-movie axis, it’s middling: derivative, but competent enough that it doesn’t live in The Room / Manos territory.

Going Under (1990 / 1991)

(Your 1990 tag matches the production year; it was released 1991 on VHS.)

Basic facts

• Submarine spoof comedy also known as Dive!; directed by Mark W. Travis, starring Bill Pullman, Wendy Schaal, Ned Beatty, Robert Vaughn, Roddy McDowall. citeturn0search1turn0search4
• Plot: the U.S. submarine “Sub Standard” — an intentionally shoddy boat built by a corrupt contractor — is sent on a one-way mission while an inept crew races a Russian sub to secure a nuclear weapon. citeturn0search1turn0search7turn0search9turn0search13

Sex / nudity context

• Described as a PG-rated, Police-Academy-style military spoof with slapstick, wordplay, and broad gags. citeturn0search1turn0search9
• I’m not seeing evidence of notable nudity or skin-flick tropes — this is more “goofy family-ish comedy” than sexploitation.

Bad-movie / cult reputation

• TV Guide gave it 2/5 stars; Hal Erickson’s Military Comedy Films notes that though it’s a cheap spoof, some money and thought went in and the production values match early-90s feature norms. citeturn0search1
• It never hit theaters, went direct-to-VHS, and now lives in mild obscurity. It’s regarded as weak but not colossally, joyously bad.

Rubric-wise

• Nudity: basically negligible.
• Bad-movie: weak, but below your Room/Manos benchmark and not famous for being awful.
• Under your filter it’s unlikely to qualify on either axis.

The Great Texas Dynamite Chase (1976)

Basic facts

• Low-budget crime/comedy (New World Pictures) directed by Michael Pressman, starring Claudia Jennings and Jocelyn Jones. Also released as Dynamite Women. citeturn0search5turn0search11turn0search14
• Plot: Candy Morgan breaks out of prison, strips off her jumpsuit, and robs a Texas bank with lit dynamite. Bank teller Ellie-Jo, just fired for “total lack of character,” joins her on a multi-state bank-robbing spree. citeturn0search5turn0search14

Sex / nudity context

• Posters and taglines lean hard into “two sexy girls go on a bank-robbing binge.” citeturn0search2turn0search14
• Variety called it “a well-made exploitation film” with action and tongue-in-cheek humor — New World was very much selling the combination of explosions + attractive female leads. citeturn0search5turn0search11
• While detailed parental guides are thinner for 70s exploitation, repeated descriptions emphasize skimpy clothes, leering camera, and the marketing of the leads’ bodies as a primary draw rather than incidental character detail.

Bad-movie / cult reputation

• Roger Corman later said it was “quite successful … the action was treated with humor … both leading ladies were good, and the film was well made of its type.” citeturn0search5
• Variety praised it as an effective exploitation movie with “kicks for the ozoner crowd and tongue-in-cheek humor for the more sophisticated.” citeturn0search5turn0search11
• Audience scores land in the middle (around 3/5). It’s considered a solid example of its niche rather than disastrously bad.

Rubric-wise

• Nudity/sexualization: moderate-high, strongly marketed on “sexy outlaw girls,” very much exploitation-coded even if not wall-to-wall nudity.
• Bad-movie: not especially — it’s competent and even respected within drive-in exploitation circles.

If you want to keep tuning your shelf:

• The Girl Next Door (2004) and Great Texas Dynamite Chase both live more on your “sexualized/exploitative” axis than your “pure garbage” axis.
• Going Under barely registers on either and is more just forgettable goofy-sub spoof.