Reckless Encounters

Date sent:        Mon, 28 Oct 1996 22:33:47 +0000 (GMT)
From:             Kuang-Jung Chen 
To:               [email protected]
Subject:          Reckless Encounters


 "Reckless Encounters" (1995) is a standard example of "cheap 
porno" in the 90s. A "cheap porno" does not mean it was made with small 
budget (most of adult movies made with small budget), but means an adult 
movie does not deliver hot sex scenes. Except for some interesting plot 
designs, most of audiences don't really care about stories (though some 
gifted directors like John Leslie really can write good scripts), and 
thus, the most important mission of a porno is to deliver hot sex scenes (of
course the definition of a "hot sex scene" is subject matter). Unfortunately, 
lots of porn filmmakers today seem not to care about the "feeling" of sex 
scenes anymore, instead only care about the "action" of sex scenes. 

 "Reckless Encounters" points out two most seriously problem of a 
"cheap porno" which make most adult movies nowadays not as enjoyable as 
before. First, sex scenes in this movie are short and "cold." second, too 
many close-ups reduce the "feeling" of sex scenes.

 "Reckless Encounters" is a standard porno which features 4 girls 
and delivers 5 (including a g/g scene) sex scenes. They are all very 
disappointed. The first scene features usually very hot Pat Kennedy. But 
because of the bad camera angles and editing, I can't really see the 
blowjob, and this scene made me sleepy. The second scene features Missy 
and Tom Bryon. Missy is one of few new porn stars who are usually very 
energetic in their performances. Just like Pat Kennedy, she is seriously 
wasted in this movie. This scene is really a potential great sex scene: 
Tom Bryon, a waiter, and Missy, a horny custmor, get fucked on the 
dinning table. Unfortunately, we have a very short and cold sex, even the 
facial can't save it. Then, Micki Lynn takes on two guys. Micki Lynn has 
a sweet face and is always enthusiastic when she performs (you can check 
"the Oh! Zone" which also starring beautiful Sunset Thomas and hot Kirsty 
Waay). But, again, the bad filmming angles and editing ruin this 
potential great threesome. The final scene features Jill Kelly and Mike 
Horner. Jill Kelly doesn't always get involved very much in her 
performances, so this scene didn't disappoint me as much as other scenes. 
However, this scene is really too short; I can't even take a good look at 
Jill Kelly's body and face, and her performances made me feel that Mike 
Horners dick isn't into her; this scene made me feel that the director 
just wanted to end this movie as soon (cheap) as possible. "Reckless 
Encounters" really has an arguably all star cast (if Jill Kelly display 
her occasional enthusiasm), but all the girls are wasted because of the 
bad filmming skills, and mostly because of filmmakers' "cheap" attitude.

 There is a key element which makes a hard-core a hard-core, but 
also damages the feeling of sex scenes in a hard-core: close-ups. 
Close-ups just make every sex scene looks like the same, and makes those 
sexy pron stars irrelevant to an adult film. When 80% of a sex scene are 
close-ups of a dick or two (sometimes three) in and out of a pussy or an 
asshole, who can tell whose pussy is that? Or who cares whose pussy on 
the screen? If audiences just like to watch pussies twisted with dicks, 
they only need to buy one flick, and then watch it over and over again. A 
sex porn star is attracted to audiences because of her face, her body, 
her voice etc., not only because of her pussy. Furthermore, a sex scene 
can relly turn audiences on not because of the display of pussy/asshole fight
with dicks, but because a beautiful, sexy lady get involved in a hot fucking.
If we lived in an age when close-ups are difficult to see, we may need a 
porno contains lots of close-ups. But we don't; in the contrary, we have 
more than enough. In my opinion, the best shot in a porno is a full body 
shot including the display of penetration, and close-ups and body shots 
should be balanced in a porno. However, close-ups are dominant in adult 
movies nowadays, and excessive close-ups indeed damage lots of potential 
good sex scenes.

 In the second scene of "Reckless Encounters," when Missy starts to
get involved, the close-ups of huge pussy and dick shows up and the 
penetration lasts three minutes; the exotic feeling is seriously disturbed.
When watching it, I would like to see Missy's sexy face and horny 
performances, rather than to face a huge pussy twisted with a dick on the 
screen. In the old days (sigh! just few years ago), I could edit a sex 
scene by cutting out almost all close-ups and got about ten minutes hot 
fucking with sexy face and body. But if I do the same thing with a sex 
scene made after 1995, I only can get about three minutes of full body 
shots or middle shots for faces. Lots of porno audiences has turned their 
faith to watch soft-core version on cable. It's understandable because 
they can find more full or middle shots of those sexy porn stars' bodies 
and faces. To those audiences who have the same taste as I do, I 
recommand them to check out "Spice" channel on cable. However, the 
soft-core is not all that great. For instance, you will be disappointed 
when you can't take a good look at blowjobs. To a big facial fan like me 
will be very disappointed because there is no facial in a soft-core; at 
the end of every scene, you only get a screammin' guy with his ugly face. 
The best thing to do probably is to edit a hard-core and a soft-core 
together, if you have the chance and energy to do it.

 Most hard-core movies are "cheap porno." Does it mean audiences really 
like and satisfy with those porno with cold sex and excessive close-ups? 
I hope the answer is no; otherwise I should stop trying any thing after 
1995 (seeing those sexy girls be wasted is really heartbreaking), and 
watch old movies (before 1990) again and again.