Does anybody at least think it looks like it might be good? From what I can tell it uses non-actors who've chosen to take part in a couple of movies (including this one) for the studio. So it should have an "amateur" feel to it. (In other words, a couple who would be having sex with each other any way but have let themselves be filmed.)

[Link]

(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

[Link]

Edited by - Mythsong on 7/3/2003 1:05:40 PM

[Link]

My initial response is that it's definitely erotica and not pornography. The sex isn't at all graphic but it is pretty steamly nonetheless. Excellent acting and production values.

Edited by - Mythsong on 10/7/2003 10:37:50 PM

[Link]

Please post a link to a review and/or a store to buy this wonderfully interesting topic DVD..

[Link]

I'm not going to do a "proper" review of it, but will present the following mini-review. (I may turn this into an actual review sometime later.)

I think it tried to be too many things at once and ended up failing on all fronts - because of the intrusion of other elements. The sex wasn't graphic enough to be much more than soft porn. Which would have been just fine, if the rest of the plot / character development made up for that fact, but it didn't. I found that, at the end, I really didn't care much about the characters at all, and there were some things that didn't even make sense. (Like, at the end of the movie, where Mika tells "Poochie" that she finally knows why he's called that. You'd think that she'd know him well enough by then to either know his real name, or, at least, the reasoning behind his nickname...)

I was distracted by some of the scene transition effects that looked like amateur Video 101 to get from one scene to another. (Those animated, shrinking and rotating boxes.) Some of the editing was good - but this effect only served to spoil things in my mind. I also got quite annoyed with the music by the end of the movie. It ended up being intrusive. I would have much preferred to hear what the people were saying, the little comments they made during the love scenes. I could have turned the volume up to hear those comments, but only at the expense of a very loud soundtrack that I'd have to "listen through". (If the soundtrack had to be there at that volume level, then the dialogue and other "natural" sounds shouldn't have been presented at all - those bits should have had the soundtrack as the only audio.)

Not least of all, in terms of distracting, were these intercut, black and white daydream scenes. Daydream scenes like this are fine - so long as they're used properly, unlike here where things kept (jarringly) jumping back and forth, at too short intervals, between the actual/current scene and the daydream. Either that, or the moments at which the jump to the other scene took place simply seemed random, rather than having any justification. For both these reasons, both levels of "reality" ended up suffering.

(Most frustrating of all was one daydream scene of a MFF threesome. Bits and pieces of it were shown, but it never appeared in the movie itself. I would have far preferred to see the whole scene, in colour, rather than just the little bits that did get presented. Part of the frustration was the added confusion between what was a flashback, what was a flashforward, and what was an all-out daydream that was just in somebody's head. There was no filmic or narrative device in place to distinguish between these, so you were never quite sure what was going on (or had gone on, or would go on at some future point) and, when the credits rolled, I was left feeling somewhat cheated and dissatisifed by the plot. I assume that that MFF scene will happen after the point in the movie where we get the end credits - but either show it, or don't allude to it more than just once, briefly, in final scene. Instead it was shown somewhat repeatedly over the last 20 minutes of the movie, and more than once in an example of the jarring back and forth editing mentioned above, building up expectations that never came to light.)

While I thought I liked the acting at the beginning of the movie, I soon ended up realising that it was just a little too unnatural to seem real. Rather than putting an interesting spin on the way the characters spoke - I soon just felt as if they couldn't deliver their intended lines properly. They did a better job than in most adult movies, but not good enough to seem quite realistic. It should have been either better - or worse, as strange as that may sound. (Just like the explicit sex should have been more or less than it was.) The fact that it was "almost" there made things a bit surreal, and not in a way that fit with the atmosphere of the movie.

On a personal level, I was turned off by the condom use throughout the movie. The first time it was kind of a novelty, but by the end I wasn't looking forward to any of the intercourse scenes because I knew what had to precede them. If it had been filmed differently, then it wouldn't have bothered me so much. But, rather than never show much of anything, and focus mainly on the film elements and characters OR focusing more on the sex itself, it ended up doing neither and ended up giving an impression of just general confusion. The fact that it showed some graphic moments (but always very briefly, and inconsistently from one moment to the next) made the ever-present shot of somebody reaching for a condom and opening it seem unnecessary. Why always show this? Once you've established that they're being used, there's no reason to always show this being done. If a particular scene doesn't show the opening, but their use has already been demonstrated, nobody's going to get confused to see one in use without having seen it introduced (in that scene).

Also, at a personal level, I objected to the friendly spanking that took place in the final scene at the end of the movie. I had no issue with the S/M dungeon sequence at the beginning of the movie, where this made sense, nor would I have had a problem with this if it had happened throughout the rest of the scenes, so that an expectation of that behaviour was built up. But, instead, outside of that initial dungeon environment where it certainly wasn't suprising, all of the scenes up to the final one showed nothing like that - so when it was introduced at the end it was unexpected and rather disconcerting. (Not the act itself, but the fact that it happened.)

On the flipside, this could have been a great movie. It has a very positive, upbeat attitude, and it clearly showcases affection and caring between the lead couple (and others). The message is one that's obviously in favour of all of the things that are good about couples films. The performers are all just "regular" people going about their regular lives - and having healthy sexual relations that also help them explore their personal relationship.

Unfortunately, I found I just couldn't bring myself to enjoy it, because I always found myself distracted by one thing or another. Also, as I mentioned earlier, it should have either have had less explicit sex or more explicit sex. Not the strange mix that it did have. Whenever something graphic did appear, it was pretty much isolated from the rest of the scene that didn't show anything like that. Either follow through, or don't show that one thing at all.

All in all, it was a too chaotic mix of elements that, to me, made it just seem confusing and frustrating rather than something that held my attention. I find myself seriously wondering about the review as given by Blowfish (referenced in my initial post). Some things I have to wholeheartedly disagree with. Others, I do agree with (in theory anyway) - but wish that it could have capitalised on its promise and been the film that it clearly could have been if it had been more focused.

I'd like to give this 4/5 stars, which is what I think it deserves to receive in terms of its conception, but, in terms of actual execution, can only honestly give it 2.5/5. Which is not to say that it's simply an "okay" movie. It's really quite a good movie - it's just that that good movie is "hiding" inside a bad framework.

[Link]

Edited by - Mythsong on 10/7/2003 11:42:16 PM

[Link]