Directed by (a pseudonym often used for adult projects in that era), the film was produced on a shoestring budget. Animators used limited animation techniques: characters often stand still while only their mouths move, backgrounds are static watercolors, and "action" sequences rely on repetition. However, what the film lacks in fluid motion, it attempts to make up for in sheer audacity.
However, like many bad movies, it found a second life in the 1990s as a "cult classic." The rise of the internet and file-sharing forums turned the search for the into a Holy Grail quest for fans of "so bad it's good" cinema. the ribald tales of canterbury 1985 classic full
This article unpacks the history, the artistic merit, the controversy, and the legacy of this X-rated animated feature. Loosely—very loosely—based on Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales (1392), the 1985 film jettisons the religious allegory and social satire of the original in favor of bawdy slapstick, nudity, and sexual farce. The plot skeleton remains recognizable: A group of pilgrims traveling to Canterbury Cathedral to see the shrine of Thomas Becket decide to pass the time by telling stories. Directed by (a pseudonym often used for adult
However, in this version, the "tales" are essentially soft-core vignettes animated in the style of a Saturday morning cartoon—only featuring characters engaging in acts that would make a network censor faint. However, like many bad movies, it found a
Character designs are exaggerated to the point of caricature: men have jutting chins and hooked noses; women have impossibly narrow waists, ballooning chests, and eyelashes that seem to have a life of their own. The backgrounds, however, are surprisingly beautiful. The scenes of the Canterbury countryside—rolling green hills, ancient stone roads, misty abbeys—are rendered in a soft, pastel watercolor style that clashes gloriously with the crass, ink-pen characters moving across them. Upon its release in 1985, The Ribald Tales of Canterbury was not a hit. It played in a handful of drive-in theaters and "adult only" cinemas before disappearing into the VHS netherworld. Critics despised it. The Los Angeles Times called it "a depraved slog through the worst impulses of low-budget animation," while Variety famously wrote: "Chaucer is rolling in his grave. So might you, from laughter or nausea—it’s a coin toss."