I wonder if Warren Beatty ever watched this video? More to the point, I wonder if anyone beyond a completist like me has wasted the time - yet another latter-day embarrassment from once porn legend Gerard Damiano, RIP.
Video would serve as a good booking if XXX porn is ever discovered by the camp followers who show trashy old mainstream films (think: Joan Crawford movies) at midnight and have a transvestite host (in my neighborhood it's Hedda Lettuce) lead the audience in catcalls and rude comments. That's about all ASS is good for.
Damiano contrives to have his cast pretend they're lampooning a drawing room comedy, for a fey effect more in common with Charles Ludlam and the Theatre of the Ridiculous than porn. I found the cumulative failed attempt at humor to be way past annoying and more like torture but if you are willing to stoop so low as to watch this on DVD then you be the judge.
Tom Byron and Sharon Kane star as unlikely British aristocrats with their trusty manservant Randy Spears (more insufferable than usual) trying to find a suitable mate for their virginal son Wesley (Peter North). Pondering North being a virgin might be a strain, but even worse he's 4 years older than actor Byron as his papa.
The girl they find turns out cornily to be the maid Wesley likes, already under their roof, Rachel Ryan. Since lovely Rachel's porn specialty is anal sex, there's not much suspense here as to her title fate.
Before the nuptials they enlist a whore to deflower the boy, Nina Hartley cast as Hortense Harlott. This gives rise to a typical old joke in Damiano's script: when Hartley arrives Sharon asks "Is that Hortense?" and Byron replies "I don't know, she looks relaxed to me".
The ham-bone acting and usual sex scenes by pros adds up to some unintentional amusement. The cast's winking at the audience is certainly annoying, but apparently Damiano was determined to broadcast that these late-in-his-career videos "don't count", as opposed to the relatively pretentious '70s works when he was in his prime and pushing boundaries. The question for the viewer is: are the video-makers having fun at the expense of their audience or just acting silly in order to survive the boredom of cranking out the same old junk over & over?
Video would serve as a good booking if XXX porn is ever discovered by the camp followers who show trashy old mainstream films (think: Joan Crawford movies) at midnight and have a transvestite host (in my neighborhood it's Hedda Lettuce) lead the audience in catcalls and rude comments. That's about all ASS is good for.
Damiano contrives to have his cast pretend they're lampooning a drawing room comedy, for a fey effect more in common with Charles Ludlam and the Theatre of the Ridiculous than porn. I found the cumulative failed attempt at humor to be way past annoying and more like torture but if you are willing to stoop so low as to watch this on DVD then you be the judge.
Tom Byron and Sharon Kane star as unlikely British aristocrats with their trusty manservant Randy Spears (more insufferable than usual) trying to find a suitable mate for their virginal son Wesley (Peter North). Pondering North being a virgin might be a strain, but even worse he's 4 years older than actor Byron as his papa.
The girl they find turns out cornily to be the maid Wesley likes, already under their roof, Rachel Ryan. Since lovely Rachel's porn specialty is anal sex, there's not much suspense here as to her title fate.
Before the nuptials they enlist a whore to deflower the boy, Nina Hartley cast as Hortense Harlott. This gives rise to a typical old joke in Damiano's script: when Hartley arrives Sharon asks "Is that Hortense?" and Byron replies "I don't know, she looks relaxed to me".
The ham-bone acting and usual sex scenes by pros adds up to some unintentional amusement. The cast's winking at the audience is certainly annoying, but apparently Damiano was determined to broadcast that these late-in-his-career videos "don't count", as opposed to the relatively pretentious '70s works when he was in his prime and pushing boundaries. The question for the viewer is: are the video-makers having fun at the expense of their audience or just acting silly in order to survive the boredom of cranking out the same old junk over & over?