I have a bit of a soft spot for bad B-movies made by naive filmmakers who seem to think that they are doing a good job. Those movies that will never get the exposure like 'The Hobbit' gets, due to the very limited release; mostly the umpteenth direct-to-DVD sequels nobody ever heard of from a franchise (loosely applied) they hardly know, and very few will ever rent or buy, especially when it receives a considerable amount of beating from all kinds of review sites.

I happened to catch this naughty little underachiever recently in its unrated DVD edition. Now I'll admit that 'Poison Ivy 4: The Secret Society' is a movie to steer clear from: it is a B-movie in any sense of the word, with risible acting, sub-par screenplay, below average directing and very limited production values (the music and photography are too generic to make an impression). In the old days, I would say that it was even worse than a average TV series, but series of late have been of remarkably high quality, so that comparison would not be fair. And yet, there is a thing to say about forming one's own opinion instead of clinging slavishly to the judgment of others. Especially bad movies get an increasingly worse reputation from people who haven't seen it, but simply copy the judgments of others and then add some. I still want to see 'Movie 43' and 'After Earth' and rate them for myself when I am ready for it. Had I obediently followed the recommendations, I would have missed 'Grown Ups' and 'Bitch Slap', which I both loved. And let us not forget the immortal words of the great and late Roger Ebert on 'Basic Instincts 2' (slightly paraphrased): "I cannot recommend it, but... why the hell can't I? Because it's god-awful? What reason is that to stay away from a movie? God-awful AND boring... now THAT is a reason!"

Now, you could describe Poison Ivy 4 as 'god-awful', but that would be overstating it. It isn't boring or annoying, I simply found it lacking overall, but too cute to get mad at. Much of that is thanks to Miriam McDonald as the unconvincing leading lady Daisy. She couldn't act her way out of a dating site commercial, but somehow she was cast as a cute freshman out-of-town genius who gets admitted into a highly exclusive college course. She is supposed to be very smart, straight A's and all, yet she is so adorably naive to have sex on the first date with an obvious bad boy who has the word 'womanizer' practically burnt into his forehead. Yet, when he predictably cheats on her (next day already!), I couldn't help feeling a bit sorry for her feeble attempts to sulk and pout. I genuinely hoped that poor Daisy would be more prudent from now on.

No such luck: she doesn't get suspicious when she is approached by a sinister secret sorority that is unquestionably linked to the death of her predecessor. It doesn't help that most characters are surprisingly quick to believe the 'it-was-an-accident' explanation, especially since we never hear any convincing details of this accident. The sorority itself is ruled by a queen bee called Azalea (Shawna Waldron) with equally limited acting skills. She is so diabolic and insincerely nice that the word 'bitch' is practically burnt into her forehead. Of course, cute Daisy doesn't notice, not even when she is abducted, more-or-less forced to join, and then exploited. You keep wondering how effective Azalea is as leader of this supposedly powerful and secret society: it is supposed to have influences everywhere, but outside, nothing more than a rumor; yet everyone on campus seems to know and warn about it. When the girls want to burn womanizer's car in retaliation, they even have to do it themselves, out on the open street. What, no lower-level thugs to do the filthy work? Strangely, the secret and sophisticatedly-sounding motto, 'Concordia res parvae crescunt' (small things grow through harmony), is proudly displayed on their headquarters (I assume the writers chose it since it was already displayed on the building where they were allowed to film).

Not much is unpredictable or surprising in the remainder of the movie, although this all-powerful organization is surprisingly easily defeated. Some of the older actors (like Greg Evigan as the professor) do a lot better than the younglings, except for the female detective, who even beats Daisy in underacting (but isn't as cute). There is some nice, non-offensive nudity, twice from Azalea pretending to be a femme fatale (at least her body language is better than her acting), and twice from Daisy (she is required to be completely nude for a tattoo on her lower back, so don't worry, all functional :-). Yet, the movie takes itself quite serious, with much less focus on sex scenes and more on plot than comparable erotic B-movies. The fact that it was released by New Line Cinema, a quality house since the 'Lord of the Rings' movies, may signify that they intended to produce a genuinely smart erotic thriller cross-breed of 'The Craft' and 'The Skulls'. Or they simply left it to their direct-to-DVD department to make a few quick bucks. Next time, read the script first, guys.

Not wanting to kick an already dead horse, I maintain that while I do not applaud or recommend this movie, judging it has not been without a sense of (guilty) pleasure. It should be mandatory viewing for those who claim that most of the stuff that comes out of Hollywood is really really bad, because nothing puts things back in perspective than a genuinely mediocre movie. I found it quite endearing, which is why I award it 4 stars instead of 2. Thanks to Daisy. You poor thing, you definitely deserve better than to be fooled by womanizers and bitches! You definitely deserve a better movie...