They suck at what they do, and they`re doing it good! I rarely review porn, but I can’t help but make an exception for Suckula in 1973. This is something.
The film is presented as a TV program like those seen on Ren-TV and TV-3: the presenter promises an exclusive investigation into the life of vampires in Los Angeles and switches from reporting from the scene to “genuine footage shot by our cameraman”, with almost every such story followed by an advertising block. I think there is no need to specify that the film is thoroughly parody – and, as I think, similar programs and similar subgenres of pornography are parodied at once, as is known, often imitating both “unstaged shooting” and all imaginable non-erotic genres and media formats. In general, it seems that the comedy component of the film was for its creators in the foreground, and they undoubtedly had a lot of fun in the process of shooting.
If you find funny an inconclusive imitation of a silent movie, a surreal advertisement with a touchy jingle or a mustache man in a wig as a journalist - congratulations, you found a movie specifically for your needs. If not, do not despair, because there are still orgasmic faces! There is a fairly popular notion that the faces of men who end up looking very funny; I myself have no opinion on this, since I have not had enough sex with men in my life, but I can guarantee that you will not find a better illustration of this theory than Suckula. What accompanies the supposed orgasm is usually called “original actors with comic exercises”; it is impossible to describe it, as, apparently, Dracula’s sensations from a blowjob. But even if actors don't have sex, it doesn't mean they don't have fun! Buck Flower, an actor, by the way, lit up in many episodic roles in mainstream and quite decent cinema, including, in particular, “Back to the Future”, plays the role of a host, as well as a journalist, and his magnificently awkward play is quite worthy of a full-fledged comedy without showing genitals and gives an impression more than surreal.
Speaking of genitals. The erotic component of the film, as I have already noted, is clearly secondary to the authors, and it is felt, of course. Admittedly, I did not try to use this porn for its intended purpose, but I hardly would have succeeded: in addition to distracting grimaces, Suckula is replete with not only a detailed demonstration, but also super-close plans of the primary sexual characteristics of the characters, and this does not add much eroticism - simply because often in the end we just look at two farts of hair rubbing against each other. In addition, any erotic activity here lasts without any variations for two or three minutes at least, and although the endurance of the actors can be admired, it looks somewhat monotonous. Even the professionalism of all participants and the enthusiasm and enthusiasm of the charming and hot Brigitte Mayer do not save the situation.
The easier it is to perceive “Sacula” as a very strange comedy.
It’s... a strange but curious near-cinematic experience, but I’d love to watch Monster Motorcycles That Eat Naked Hippies.
4 out of 10