Dark Force Entertainment Discussion Thread

[CODE RED DVD]

Originally Posted by Vincent Dawn

Ha ha... Maybe? Makes it even funnier he didn't know the other guy was her dad then. But I don't think the two male actors were on the same page during that scene. They even disagree during the sex about whether or not his team won the game.

I did think at first he was the brother, because why else would the dad/coach be bringing home one of his players. But then the dialogue confused the hell out of me.

Dad said...

Pull out ****ar, I don't want inbred kids

[jmilo61]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

Dad said...

Pull out ****ar, I don't want inbred kids

I read this with no context. And I'm leaving it that way.

I'm not going back to catch up on the thread because I don't want to ruin this post with proper context.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Vincent Dawn

Ha ha... Maybe? Makes it even funnier he didn't know the other guy was her dad then. But I don't think the two male actors were on the same page during that scene. They even disagree during the sex about whether or not his team won the game.

I did think at first he was the brother, because why else would the dad/coach be bringing home one of his players. But then the dialogue confused the hell out of me.

The dad in Sharon was the highlight for me. At first it's uncomfortable because he's kind of ugly, but as the film moves on it's clear that he's actually one of the more attractive people in the film, so the brain adjusts accordingly. He has the vague appearance of a redneck version of Al Pacino and is pretty good at being funny while enjoying some "quality" time with his daughter.

The rest of the film is okay. Sharon herself is a lame character, but the shots of the outside of a real high school complete with pupils getting into school buses has to be some of the most bemusing footage in porn history. Surely this high school had (still has?) no idea that it was featured in an ultra-low-budget 70s incest-themed porn film.

I tried to watch Terri's Revenge, but the constant heavy print damage (in bright green-yellow, like fireflies) on the left side of the film was too distracting. I ended up "watching" the whole thing on fast forward. It was too rough for me, anyhow.

One thing I don't like about a lot of these cheap 1970s films is that the people on camera often don't look very attractive. Of course, there are lots of exceptions, but it seems like a lot of the smaller, and often earlier 70s flicks were just happy to get naked people having sex on camera. The late 70s onwards seems to be much more consistent in regards to making sure people in the films were attractive.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vincent Dawn

I watched Sharon/Terri's Revenge last night.

I think Terri's Revenge was the more interesting film, but its a much rougher print. Probably the best they could do given what they had [surviving elements], but a lot of damage to the print and damage to the audio. It does have some rough stuff in it like a guy having a dildo shoved up his ass, girl being peed on, a man's balls being tied so tight with rope his sack looks like it's going to burst, etc. But you'll see a lot more rougher stuff in modern BDSM films. It seemed like the revenge stuff didn't really take place until 2/3rds into the film; a lot more set up than payoff. They did try to have a twist in the story with the reveal of who the rapist was- props to them for adding a little effort into the story.

Sharon's print looks nice, but not perfect. The colors looks great. Although there's not much the distributor can do about technical problems with the filmmaking (like shots being in focus. Not eye hurtingly blurry but often soft.) Not much story going on in it. After the opening incest scene, most of the film is Sharon wandering around a party watching the sex going on in different rooms until she finds someone to have sex with her.

The dialogue, sometimes bad ADR, is the highlight of the film. There's one scene with a father double teaming his daughter with a football player and it seems like they didn't tell the football player what the scene/film was about because the father has to correct him a few times. Or maybe that was intentional. I don't know but it was humorous when he says stuff like "I hope her daddy don't catch us" and the other guy responds "I am her daddy, you dumb shit."

Also the music in Sharon is... interesting.

I don't know anything about the history of these films. I wouldn't be surprised if they have cult reputations. As long as you know what you're buying, you'll probably be satisfied with what you get.

Thanks for that. That sounds quite wild!

[CODE RED DVD]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

The dad in Sharon was the highlight for me. At first it's uncomfortable because he's kind of ugly, but as the film moves on it's clear that he's actually one of the more attractive people in the film, so the brain adjusts accordingly. He has the vague appearance of a redneck version of Al Pacino and is pretty good at being funny while enjoying some "quality" time with his daughter.

The rest of the film is okay. Sharon herself is a lame character, but the shots of the outside of a real high school complete with pupils getting into school buses has to be some of the most bemusing footage in porn history. Surely this high school had (still has?) no idea that it was featured in an ultra-low-budget 70s incest-themed porn film.

One thing I don't like about a lot of these cheap 1970s films is that the people on camera often don't look very attractive. Of course, there are lots of exceptions, but it seems like a lot of the smaller, and often earlier 70s flicks were just happy to get naked people having sex on camera. The late 70s onwards seems to be much more consistent in regards to making sure people in the films were attractive.

Gal who played Sharon married JOE SPINELL and had a kid with him. She left to Florida and sold the kid!! His friends told me he was hurt losing a child. She died and kid is missing.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

Gal who played Sharon married JOE SPINELL and had a kid with him. She left to Florida and sold the kid!! His friends told me he was hurt losing a child. She died and kid is missing.

Blimey.

[Rayjg]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

Gal who played Sharon married JOE SPINELL and had a kid with him. She left to Florida and sold the kid!! His friends told me he was hurt losing a child. She died and kid is missing.

Pedro Salva strikes again

[CODE RED DVD]

Show tonite????

[gbm82]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

Show tonite????

Why not post it here?

[vortexx]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

Gal who played Sharon married JOE SPINELL and had a kid with him. She left to Florida and sold the kid!! His friends told me he was hurt losing a child. She died and kid is missing.

Did she get arrested for selling the kid or jailed?

[Gotho(redux)]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

Show tonite????

Only if you promise to wear pants.

[CODE RED DVD]

Originally Posted by vortexx

Did she get arrested for selling the kid or jailed?

She died instead.

[jmilo61]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

She died instead.

With every post here it gets more and more difficult to wack off to this movie.

[Steedeel]

Finally ordered Sharon!

Hope it slips through customs, don’t fancy another £15 charge.

[chocolat]

So Magdalena possessed by the devil has been out since March and no one has reviewed it? Is the PQ on par with Death Rage? Anyone whp owns it care to share before I drop $30 on it?

[DaveyJoe]

Originally Posted by jmilo61

With every post here it gets more and more difficult to wack off to this movie.

Challenge accepted.

[iamnoone]

Originally Posted by chocolat

So Magdalena possessed by the devil has been out since March and no one has reviewed it? Is the PQ on par with Death Rage? Anyone whp owns it care to share before I drop $30 on it?

I never got DEATH RAGE, but the print quality on MAGDALENA is a bit rough, but still colorful and watchable. It's supposedly the only uncut print. I think there were some frames missing here and there, but nothing terrible.

TRUST ME, though, the film is crazy wild and hilarious and sleazy. It delivers the fun ten-fold. One of my favorite watches of the year, even if it's no where near a pristine presentation. It's probably as good as it's ever going to get. Buy it!

[hudson4k]

Originally Posted by jmilo61

With every post here it gets more and more difficult to wack off to this movie.

I love this thread.

[iamnoone]

Re: MAGDALENA

Here's a short clip that may convince you to buy, or not. The blu obviously looks way better than this:

NSFW:

Magdalena, Possessed by the Devil (1974) Theatrical Trailer - YouTube

[kvnbhovis]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

One thing I don't like about a lot of these cheap 1970s films is that the people on camera often don't look very attractive. Of course, there are lots of exceptions, but it seems like a lot of the smaller, and often earlier 70s flicks were just happy to get naked people having sex on camera. The late 70s onwards seems to be much more consistent in regards to making sure people in the films were attractive.

That's why I mainly stick to European films from this period. Much, much easier on the eyes.