Pretty.Dirty Vol. 2

I've been far too rough on Eddie Powell as of late, much the way I used to be on Robby D (I haven't reviewed any of his films lately, so maybe I still would be). I'm a very visual person, and I get easily frustrated when I don't feel like I can actually see a scene. Robby's constant zooming in and then panning means there is such a small field of view, I can't feel like I'm there. But with Eddie, he not only does that, but he dresses it up with high-contrast lighting, odd camera angles, and a bizarre obsession with making the women he shoots seem really very young, like being with a man is a corrupting influence. I'm going to do everything I can to give Pretty Dirty Volume 2 a fair shake, but I go in with a great deal of trepidation.
Morgan Brooke gets the first scene, and while the lighting is good right off the bat, the camera angles are all over the place. Oddly, too. Enough that the act of Morgan getting dressed, which I assume is supposed to be sexy, is almost a chore to watch. I feel like I have to try here, and that someone wants to show off how he can edit. Now Morgan wanders into the other room, lens filters firmly in place, and plays the tease for a guy who seems to be going out of his way to look bored. We get into tighter shots, and they look like angles and sequences that would be edited out of most other films. I'm honestly getting a headache. Did any of you ever see the old Sprockets skit on Saturday Night Live where they had the spoof film "He Loves Me; He Loves My Caribou"? That's what this feels like, only I can't find the joke in it. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough to be turned on by this film. I don't know, I have a collection of graduate degrees, so I'd like to think I'm somewhat sophisticated. But I just get frustrated watching this. What's really odd is how passionate they're portraying to be, but how utterly lacking in passion and chemistry the whole production is. I'm terrified that this is potentially award-winning porn. Just because there's a lot of money behind it doesn't mean it's any damn good.
Let's see if Remy La Croix can save it. I would think so, but let's see. Once again, we have the premise of the female pleasing the male; so in addition to being terribly shot, it also reinforces the stereotypes that an arthouse porn could potentially dispel. Lovely. This is like watching Michael Ninn's career go into a trainwreck when he founded his own studio. If I can say anything nice, it's that the lighting is at least very good in this one. But again, I feel like I've just watch two people do what they have to do, very animal-like, with no real regard for each other. Through an astonishingly smug lens, though. There is a nice oral sequence in here, where like the blind squirrel analogy, the artsy perspective really does work, but that's about the only part that does it for me. I'm in the middle of reviewing a stack of films right now. Usually I get aroused to the point where I have to stop. This film has cured that for me.
The scenes with Mimi Rayne and Britney Young are really more of the same. It's The Innoncence of Youth series, but instead of schoolgirl outfits, they're just in bras and panties. There are two bonus scenes, if that does anything for you. They don't for me. Look, I have a strong opinion, but Eddie does what he does very well. If it's your deal, go for it. I recommend buying some minutes to watch online while you're making your selections, so you can know if any given film is the one you really want. Maybe this style does it for you, and I hope it does. I've got the reputation of being the brutal, mean reviewer, and I don't think I'm doing anything to alleviate that reputation today. Ah well. There's a gonzo anal flick coming up in my stack. That should cheer me up.