I never consider "the worst" as a category or superlative in dealing with porn, since there are easily half a million "just as crummy" loops or videos out there in a field noted for its who-cares mediocrity. But SWEET JULIE is truly a stinker.
You're in trouble right from the opening credit card (there are no credits, typically). A mouth-watering voluptuous female torso is shown in the still, a better rack than even a Joyce Mandel or an Ann Howe possessed back in the day, with SWEET JULIE written beside it. No such well-built actress shows up in the film, and there is no Julie either!
Instead we have a non-story of John Holmes as a pimp, sporting a short haircut, wisp of a mustache and spectacles. His regular whore is an attractive, willowy black woman, who is introduced at the outset to his new discovery Taylor, a blonde taller than Maria Sharapova. Playing Taylor is Ashley Welles, in probably her movie debut, and clearly the best thing about the picture.
After the trio has sex, we're introduced to Stella, a redheaded whore who cannot deliver dialog properly, even at the point of death. She humps a client in a shag-carpeted van, then quarrels (sort of, you can't tell what's intended given her rotten non-acting) with John and storms off. Taylor also services a client in the van and film has a trick ending where Holmes gets bamboozled.
This is truly inane sex filler, aimed well below even the lowliest of the assumed to be cretinous audience for this stuff. The lengthy scenes set inside the van are obviously filmed on a set much larger than such a claustrophobic interior.
Worse, there appears to be some sort of sleight of hand gimmick provided for Holmes, whereby his two money shots are cleverly FAKED. As John grabs his limp dick to ejaculate he seems to be exuding copious amounts of some thick white paste from a device hidden in the palm of his hand out of view. Whatever points the moronic filmmakers earned for porno creativity I take away from them for bungling the job (or I wouldn't have noticed), all in the spirit of cheating the viewer.
1 out of 1 found this helpful