Saturday, January 20, 2007

Suburban Secretes

Ohmygodohmygodohmygod… I just saw the WORST movie EVER in the history of anything remotely movieable.

OK. Let me ‘splain.

I like porn. Well… I like the IDEA of porn. I watch a STUPID amount of pornography, and unfortunately the VAST majority of it stinks. Really, truly stinks. Now- there’s a whole bunch of different kinds of porn, some of which isn’t even really considered “porn” but I’ll include here for easy categorization.

There’s the straight ahead, full throttle (sometimes literally) “penetration visible” porno. These are usually self proclaimed “XXX” and show the whole enchilada. They’ll often show the enchilada’s neighbor and the pool boy too. There are big budget high-end films (most of which are directed by Andrew Blake, my favorite director, low on story, high on hi-glam style and nice cinematography), there are hi and low end “shot on video” films, fetish stuff, “gonzo/verite” films, amateur videos (the really, REALLY AWFUL stuff) and many other sub genres… all of which are of the “you-can-see-EVERYTHING-and-holy-shit-how-is-she-exactly-fiting-that-
in-there-and-why-hasn’t-the-twinkie-fallen-apart-yet” category.

NOW- There are also SOFT CORE porn films, most of which are made and marketed to cable channels like Cinemax. For the most part these are movies with titles that randomly combine a sexy adjective, with a saucy noun to form an absolutely meaningless, nothing of a title. Here: you can make your own. Combine one from column A, with one from column B, and odds are the film title you come up with will be on Cinemax 2 tonight at 1:35 AM.

Column A

Column B

Now – THESE movies always have very attractive “actors” (the odds are MUCH greater to have good looking people in soft core than in your average hard core porn) and are well lit and look good, but have FAKE SEX. There is no penetration, and the actors (well, the male actors) often wear crotch patches to cover their dingi as they roll around and bump and grind. You will see full frontal female nudity, and OCCASIONALLY you’ll see some guys’ junk, but NEVER erect, and always either pre-scene or post. I don’t know who makes up the rules that these soft core films have to follow- but they all seem to.

[…as an aside, the only way I can get off on these soft core films is during lesbian scenes. HOWEVER- MOST lesbian scenes in these soft core flicks stink. They usually have “tentative lesbian kissers” which are actresses that are just doing these films, DON’T like kissing other women and SHOW IT. Feh. It’s quite amazing that most of these “tentative kissers” won’t make out with a woman, but will lick her breasts. Weird eh? SOMETIMES you get either former porn actresses, or women that DIG women, and they really make out with each other. Nice. This unfortunately is pretty rare in these movies. Sigh…]

OK- within the sub-genre of soft-core films, there is a sub-sub genre of “comedy” soft core. These films are ABSOLUTELY HORRENDOUS. They manage to somehow be NEITHER sexy nor FUNNY, thereby negating the entire POINT of their existence. Some films are vague “genre” comedies like a fake “I Dream of Genie” movie called “Genie in a String Bikini”, or a pseudo police adventure like “Busty Cops” and the much needed and deeply anticipated “Busty Cops 2.” There are also the straight ahead “direct” parodies like “Lord of the G-Strings”, “Kinky Kong”, and “Spider-Babe.” These are all complete pieces of shit. They are very easily identifiable, mostly because the same 10 actors KEEP SHOWING up in all of these movies.

SOOOOO- I was watching one of the 38 Showtimes that I have, and what should come on but a film called “Suburban Secrets.” NOW- It starts, and not only does it have the shitty washed out film “look” of one of these lame porno comedies, it also has the regular stable of actors. Since I was unfamiliar with the title, and it didn’t SEEM to be a pseudo parody of anything, my prurient curiosity was piqued.


What the film basically was, was a sexless, low budget soft core porn. I don’t mean that in a vague, insulting way. I mean it in a LITERAL way. It had the HORRIBLE acting, it had the HORRIBLE lighting, it had the HORRIBLE non-story plot, AND IT KEPT SETTING UP SEX SCENES THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

OK- These soft core films usually have a very similar plots, and this was a pretty standard “successful girl goes back to her hometown and hooks up with all of her old lovers” story. The amazing, mind boggling thing was that she keeps getting ready to get it on with men and women in her hometown, and as soon as her shirt comes off- THE SCENE FADES. We cut to some other location, cut back to the 1st scene, and the SEX IS OVER.


This wasn’t one of those hard-core-films-with-the-sex-edited-out-for-hotels movies either. (That’s a whole OTHER sub-genre…ouch…) This was cut this way on dramatic purpose.

“But wait…” you say “maybe it was a serious film, that wasn’t SUPPOSED to be a wank fest.”

I’m sure that was the INTENTION of the film- but it was created by a bunch of guys that have made so many low budget soft core films, that THAT’S ALL THEY KNOW HOW TO DO. It really was AMAZING.

Two girls are talking… they’re alone. The porno section of my brain is thinking “yes! They’re gonna get it on”. They aproach each other (yes!), start rubbing each others shoulders, (yeah!) take off their shirts (sweet!) and the SCENE FADES. (What the fuck?)
We have some atrotiously acted scene with two other completely clothed characters, we cut BACK to the two girls, AND THEY’RE GETTING DRESSED. This happens over and over and over throughout the entire movie with every character.


One of my favorite scenes was in the bedroom of the main character’s former lover.

He’s supposed to be this complete irresistible stud by the way, but he looks just like former RNC chairman KEN MEHLMAN.

Anyway- what's SO GREAT is that you can actually HEAR the camera rolling in the scene. That’s right. It sounds like this fast ticking, and at first I didn’t get what it was, but then I realized- "holy shit…IT’S THE CAMERA ROLLING." Brilliant.

THE shot of the movie however, is after an office confrontation where Ken Mehlman is being seduced by another horny town chick. The director decides to end the scene by shooting the last shot from behind the girl, on the ground so that her legs frame Ken’s body against his office door.

(It’s like this poster from “For Your Eyes Only” only without the weapons.) This would have been ok, but the shot lasts for (no joke) about 50 seconds. No dialog. No movement. Just awkward silence, and the fetid stink of the directors sense of self congratulatory accomplishment: “Look at that shot- LOOK AT IT!”


If you have a chance to see this turd- PLEEEAAAASE WATCH IT.
This movie makes The Santa Clause 3 look like a comedy.

(I was all done with this post, when I noticed from the jpeg of the cover of "Suburban Secrets" that it's available as a TWO DISC Director's Edition DVD set. ohmygodohmygodohmygod...)

1 comment:

Sarah Paige said...

I present you with a link to someone's review of, what sounds to me like not only the worst porno ever, but also probably one of the worst things ever captured on film.

I'm not for the asian ones myself (the whimpering kind of freaks me out) but... it sounded to me like it would be worth watching in a "wonders of the world" kind of way


(btw, your blog is one of the more interesting i read, thus, i comment.)