Buford's Beach Bunnies (1993) User Reviews

I'm ashamed to say I have seen it

[Goon-2 · 2/10 · 3 February 1999]

This is one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad "bunny" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get "laid." Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar "2" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though.

An insult to "B-grade soft core pornography" fans.

[Krusty-12 · 1/10 · 17 May 1999]

Buford's Beach Bunnies gives B-grade T&A films a bad name. As a fan of the genre, I was appalled to find little attempt being made to exploit the young actresses talents. I refer specifically to the distinct lack of nudity and simulated sex scenes. What are the next generation of sad teenage boys watching this on late night TV supposed to think?

Should come with Tylenol

[world_b_free2004 · 1/10 · 6 November 2005]

I was staying in one night and got extremely bored around 2:00 a.m. so I flipped aimlessly through the channels and happened upon H.B.O. where this "classic" was playing. Initially I was happy to have caught something at the beginning, but my happiness faded about two minutes into the movie. The whole movie centered around an unattractive man who had a fear of females, four beautiful but empty minded women who worked as waitresses at his uncle's diner, and his enormously fat and extremely miserable cousin who also works at the diner. There are a few strange twists in this movie that make it somewhat interesting, but certainly not worth watching. Basically, if you have nothing to do some night or just can't sleep medication works much better. However guys there is a lot of skin so it may be okay to watch with no sound, but even that can get annoying

The short version cut out the funniest parts

[jameshw · 7/10 · 7 December 2005]

I saw this movie in the 90 min. runtime 1993 version and thought it was terrible. However I've also seen the same show in the 98 min. version and the 1992 uncut 101 min. version ... so I watched it again and decided that what I really liked about it was that it is quite hilarious but the short version cut out the funniest parts. You can watch any number of T&A films as they try to make you laugh just by showing excessive nudity, well this one works hard for it's laughs and boy is it funny. The 90 min. video version is cut down heavily and apparently some jokes were missing punchlines and that is why some things seemed more than a little incoherent, but you can buy the unrated version from Mark Pirro's production company.