I’ve watched porn, I’ve done the dirty, and I’m aware of terms like S&M, Scat, and BBW, but sometimes your brain just doesn’t work well enough to notice the obvious.
One Monday morning after forty minutes at the post office picking up a package, I trudged back home and plopped down for my ritual e-mail last minute check before I went off to sleep.
Upon checking my e-mail I found:
“For Review: Twink College Break”
My instant thought was: “Cool, some director made a “National Lampoon” type of comedy, it could be great.”
Don’t pity me, damn you, I have no idea what a twink means. I didn’t know what it meant until it was too late. Hey, I’m not gay, I love the rug, not fond of the pole. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
So, I saw the subject and clicked into the e-mail and read about two college guys who take a break off from college and get into all sorts of sexual escapades with other college students, and here, again, I’m thinking how funny this could be, or, worst case scenario, how funny the directors could attempt to make it.
And then I clicked the URL.
The poster featured nothing but clean cut guys in school suits, and the alarms went off immediately, and upon viewing the stills below (pun not intended) I realized, with much wide-eyed horror, and a gaping mouth (pun not intended), that creators of a full fledged gay porn had asked me to review their–uh–porn.
Suffice it to say, I quickly exited the site (pun not intended) and deleted the damn e-mail before I started feeling dirty… not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you, but I’m attempting to be a professional film critic, and last I checked, gay porn won’t get me quoted.
I mean, it will, but I wouldn’t want my grandparents to read:
TWINKS COLLEGE BREAK
“It sucked and blew!”
- Felix Vasquez Jr.
So, yes, you can see my predicament.
So, subsequent to that experience, and a quick glance at Isabella Soprano to snap me out of it, my instant impulse was to include in the guidelines:
“We do not review porn.”
But then, I stopped and realized that many people have many definitions of the word “porn”. To some, “Basic Instinct 2″ is pornography, and to some Jenna Jameson getting plugged is porn. Roger Ebert, in his review of “Underworld”, compared it to pornography. Regardless, every film has a label, and including “we do not review porn” would open me up for many questions, and queries, and put off many filmmakers. Someone with their own definition of porn would think “My film has a graphic sex scene… damn!” and move on. And I don’t want that.
Hell, to some “Amateur Porn Star Killer” could be thought of as porn mainly because it has “porn” in the title, and features graphic sexual sequences however detrimental to the plot they may be. Boy is Shane Ryan going to be mad to read that line.
Fact is, regardless of how good a film like APSK may be, to some viewers the fact that a film revolves around the theme of sex, and features a title hinting at sex, would automatically cause them to label it as porn even if they didn’t see it. Putting “We do not review porn” would have quickly put off many young filmmakers from sending over their risquÃ© films, particularly the folks from Alter Ego. And what a loss that would have been.
So, I left out the little guideline, and decided to make it interesting. I never reviewed “Twink College Break” if you haven’t caught on by now. Who knows what I’ll receive in my inbox again asking me to review “Farmer Sluts Part 4″, or “Candy Striping Naughty nurses 6: The Reckoning”, but either way, I’ll just delete it and wait for the next great filmmaker.
Or an actual good porno movie to review.
Posted on July 19, 2006 in Blogs by Felix Vasquez Jr.
If you liked this article then you may also like the following Film Threat articles:
- OTTO; OR, UP WITH DEAD PEOPLE
- EVERQUEST PLAYERS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLOWNS (part 2)
- EVERQUEST PLAYERS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLOWNS
- HOT TICKET: A LEONARD MALTIN INTERVIEW (part 3)
- GORE’S “GROWTH” SIZED UP
Popular Stories from Around the Web