After reading Gene and Mike Quasar both take their shots at the Valley Heat Vs. Shades of Hades issue, I thought I'd let people read my own reviews of the movies and decide. Shades got an 8 and made my short list for best features of the year. Not because it's a great sexual movie, but because it's the kind of movie that usually wins a lot of awards. The review is here http://www.rogreviews.com/1139.htm Valley Heat got a 7-. It was easier to take sexually. No trees were harmed in this movie. However, two of the best scenes in the movie were messed up by bad lighting. It's not a bad movie at all and if those two scenes were like the rest, it would likely have been in the 8 range. As is, it was still better than a lot of the stuff AVN nominated. That review is here http://www.rogreviews.com/1261.htm
I've seen neither, and likely will not ever see either, assuming I have to pay to see them, as I have no interest in tree-sex or hedgehog-sex. And reading reviews is subjective at best anyway.
Um, while of course you can nominate whatever you like for your short lists and whatnot, but shouldn't a better criteria for your short list be not that "this sort of stuff usually does well" and instead "hey shit, this is really GOOD!".
Also, keeping in mind the genre of film we're all looking at here is porn. Porn is stuff designed to get the prurient interest happening, so while other stuff is fine (whatever floats your boat, etc etc) I think it's important to keep that in mind porn films are there to arouse as their basic point of being.
Oddly enough, you're making the very point I had to make in RAME over and over. However, over the years I have learned that people like different kinds of porn. For me, the short list of Best Videos would read like an Anabolic/Diabolic/Seymore/Evil Angel release list. For a "feature" to get on that list would be a rare treat. Neither Shades nor Valley Heat would make the list. However, I don't think one can compare features to gonzo sexually. There is no comparison. As such, Shades made my list of Best Features. Did it arrouse? Yeah, somewhat. It's not Zupko's hottest work sexually (that would be The Abyss) but it blows the doors off limp crap like Taboo 2001, Taken and Euphoria. So I agree, but when I talk of handing out awards, I do think it is important to differentiate between Best Feature and Best (Fill in the Blank, non feature term). Shades is the kind of movie that sweeps awards because it is the kind of porn that award types like to award. (Me, I'll take a Jules Jordan video any day.)
Since you don't care for features, then yeah, you won't want to bother with either of these.
That's fair enough on your tastes, as long as the public that reads your reviews knows what your tastes run to, which I think is an important part of being a reviewer, as I'm sure you do too. That was the buying public knows how to temper the reviewer's reviews.
I guess what I'm getting at here, is unless you actually found Shades to be one of the most -arousing- features of the year, I don't know why you'd put it in -your- top ten. As opposed to a sidebar saying "this sort of thing usually wins awards".
I mean, I agree with you differentiating Features from (fill-in-the-blank), but unless -you- found Shades to be one of the ten -sexually-hottest- features of the year, I don't understand why you'd put it in your top ten. Trying to anticipate what the AVN awards might say/nominate is a bit pointless while (the promise of watching) hot sex is what brought us all to the table.
Actually Rog, while I don't bother following the plots in the features, I do like a lot of them simply because I skip the talking bits. I just prefer my Zombie movies to be directed by Sam Raimi and my Hedgehog movies to be narrated by David Attenborough.
I'd love to hear your opinions of Kaitlyn Ashley and Felecia, come to think of itFair enough then, see my only issue with the whole thing was you calling it one of the "best" features of the year, which could lead some people to accidently BUY the thing, expecting it to be a sexually arousing feature and be perhaps scarred for life by the viewing experience. Lots of people skim over the writing and just look at the numbers and top-ten lists, etc due to time, reading stuff at work, etc etc.. imagine buying -that- one and bringing it home to your partner to watch? Couch feel comfy to sleep on?
I'd love to hear your opinions of Kaitlyn Ashley and Felecia, come to think of it
Fair enough then, see my only issue with the whole thing was you calling it one of the "best" features of the year, which could lead some people to accidently BUY the thing, expecting it to be a sexually arousing feature and be perhaps scarred for life by the viewing experience. Lots of people skim over the writing and just look at the numbers and top-ten lists, etc due to time, reading stuff at work, etc etc.. imagine buying -that- one and bringing it home to your partner to watch? Couch feel comfy to sleep on?
Agree with you. I don't think anyone will be scarred by Shades. The only scary thing in Valley Heat is Ron, and some strokers might pop a gasket over the poorly lit Kiki scene :-)
