After watching The Devil’s Plaything, an erotic horror film by sexploitation director Joe Sarno, I finally discovered an important bit of information concerning women that I will share with all of you today. When a woman is sexually aroused, the first thing they do is grab their left breast. I swear. I saw it with my own eyes. Chick gets turned on, hand goes to the left boob. It’s pretty easy to remember. That right breast… TOTALLY out of bounds, so don’t even THINK of pawing at it, gents. The left boob is where it’s at.

How can I sum up the plot, here? Man, I have no clue where to begin. Let’s see. A cute lil’ hottie (who we later see naked) and her Marlene Dietrich impersonating gal pal (who we later see naked) get invited to a castle due to the cutie being related to… someone. I guess. It was pretty unclear. Anyway, the cutie looks just like the painting of a medieval vampire named Baroness Varga, who we are quickly informed will one day return in the body of another. Also, there is a rather stiff doctor (who we later see naked) and her shaggy haired brother (who we later see naked) who both get stranded there because of car problems. The guests all become entangled in the housekeeper’s (who we later see naked) games of sexual control as they all become pawns in the her naked basement rituals to raise Baroness Varga with her naked coven of naked witches.

Oh, and there’s another guest there, too (who we later see naked) but they never bother to tell us why she’s there, anyway. All that matters is that we do indeed get to see her naked.

Filled with an all German cast, Sarno wisely chose to make all the actors speak their lines in English so as to not only make the movie more commercially viable in the U.S., but also to ensure we don’t understand a fucking word said. Clever man, that Joe Sarno. In an additional bout of clever, Joe Sarno saved a shitload of money on bat effects by keeping any and all bats juuust out of camera range so bat attacks make the actor appear to be waving at absolutely nothing. Brilliant.

I’m no square, however. I’m well aware that half the fun of these 70s erotic horror movies has less than zero to do with the effects or the acting or anything and more to do with that weird dirty feeling you get from being not quite aroused by all that '70s nakedness as well as getting a hoot or two from the effects and acting. There’s something about that '70s nakedness. Maybe it’s all the messy hair, unkempt sideburns and lack of… erm… shaving, but 70s nudity always made me feel dirtier for some reason. So when there’s a promise of a no holds barred lack of cleanliness afoot, it better deliver.

But that’s where the problem lies in this release. According to the liner notes, the British and US releases of this movie were cut by about 20 minutes, apparently excising all the really naughty bits. The full version exists, and a matter of fact IS on DVD… but not this DVD. This DVD is the R rated 87-minute version. Oddly, included in the case is coupon you can use to mail away for the unrated version. Sure, it’s only three bucks and the UPC code from the sleeve, but there are two unusual facts about this offer:

First: Why not up the price by three bucks and include both versions in the first place? Like ANYONE who buys erotic horror films would be happy with owning the R rated version. There’s no way all the sex scenes end three seconds after they begin and I KNOW those hands are doing SOMETHING underneath that frame. Like that penis shaped candle was only for decorative purposes. Puhlease. This movie would be a great deal more fun if all the really naughty bits were intact. With all the sloppy editing every few minutes you just end up getting annoyed at it.

Second:DO YOU REALLY EXPECT ME TO CUT UP MY DVD SLEEVE!!!???

The decision to only package the R version pretty much sums up how my gal accidentally stepped upon the proper criteria for rating this type of movie. After she came home from a long day of wrestling animals, I told the Mrs. I watched that erotic horror movie sent me for review. “How many tissues did you go through?” She asked. Pondering this ejaculate-based inquiry, I arrived at the following realization:

“None at all, my dear. None at all.”


How's It Look, Smart Guy?
Horrible. Absolutely horrible. I have an extra bit of complaining to do concerning the image quality once I get to the extras, but for right now I’ll stick to the main feature. It’s presented in 1:78:1 anamorphic widescreen but considering the shape the print is in, that’s like pearls for swine. Just about every second of this movie has gobs of those white imperfections that show up when the image has flaked off the film reel. It’s awful and almost as distracting as the lack of actual sex in this version ... a fact made all the more awful by what you will discover when I discuss the extras.

How's It Sound, Ya Bum?
Dolby mono. Pretty tinny, kinda’ muffled. I’m sure this has less to do with age and more to do with the fact that the dialogue was recorded poorly, anyway..

You Think I Just Wanted The Movie, Pal?
Here we go…

Aside from some trailers for other Retro Shock-O-Rama releases (which ALL look like poopload of fun, by the way…) there is a seven-minute interview with none other than Joe Sarno himself. Much like the great Uwe Boll, Joe talks about his movie like he put some thought into it or something. Whatever, Joe. The real kick in the butt here is the clips they use. All shown fullscreen, the clips are much crisper looking and not anywhere close to being as beat up as what we see in the main feature. To add insult to injury, some of the clips used show precisely what's going on underneath that frame and a taste of what went on after those first three seconds of hanky-panky. So, I must assume the 16x9 widescreen format is really just a matted version of the fullscreen version used to cover up what’s going own “down below” and what I can only guess one would be needlessly sending away for.

Does this strike anyone else as dumb? Wouldn’t one normally try to put out the best product for the consumer instead of assuming they can make the logical leap that the “real” version, the one that looks nice with all the good smut intact, is only three dollars and a stamp away? Am I missing something? Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the mail away version is just as poor looking as this one, and the only cleaned up clips are the ones used in the short interview segment. Seeing that I have to cut up the DVD sleeve to find out… it ain’t happenin.’

Bring Us On Home, Brother
Watching the other trailers included on this disc, I can only hope future releases by this company don’t contain the same mistakes as this one. This could have been a nice little two-disc set that DIDN’T leave you with a case of blue balls, but as it is, my disappointment in sexual arousal is only eclipsed by my sheer annoyance.