Sexcula (1974) User Reviews (5)

no plot at all

[nick121235 · 3/10 · 12 July 2021]

I think I'd like this a lot more if the sex scenes weren't 30 minutes long. I can't say that's not what i expected though. Anyway it's really funny so it's got that going for it. The plot is pretty much incoherent, this is even more sex focused than most sexploitation films, essentially just a bunch of random scenes held together by sex scenes which are long and often, but like I said it's funny. I can't say I regret watching it but I can't say i'd watch it again. I'm not going to just sit there and watch a 15 minute sex scene so I had to skip through about half of the entire movie. As an artifact of the seventies however, I love it.

Sexual vampires

[BandSAboutMovies · 3/10 · 10 January 2022]

"She'll suck more than your blood!"

You kind of know what you're getting into.

But how many Canadian vampires do you know? I mean, outside of the post-modern ones sex organs in their armpits or living in strange apartment complexes?

Then again, thanks to Rabid and Marilyn Chambers, the erotic and the vampiric and the Canadian have gone hand in gland before, correct?

A woman and her boyfriend find an old diary at the mansion home of her family and read about how Dr. Fallatingstein created Frank, the man from a lab to satisfy all of her womanly needs but ended up with an impotent monster. So she calls up her cousin Countess Sexcula to try and Emanuelle that sewn together lab man and transform him into the lover she needs.

Nothing works. Romance, hypnotism, strippers, nothing. So Sexcula has to harvest some sex cells - look, this movie isn't based on science and don't expect it to be - and then finally he gets his mojo because the movie is about to end, just as Secula is chased by Orgie the lab assistance and the ape that they keep in the lab.

Then the camera pulls back like the end of The Holy Mountain.

That whole chapel sex scene at the end feels like an insert from another movie and is some of the lone sex in the film, if that's what you're looking for. I mean, you're not going to find anything scary. Strangely enough, the 1985 movie Overnight is about a Czech director named Vladmir Jezda making a porn that has a sex robot unable to get it up for Countess Sexcula.

Sexcua was lost for awhile, it was found and perhaps it should have stayed buried. But how many movies combine porno chic with gothic Universal horror? Not enough.

Lost in a basement for 40 years for a reason

[selfdestructo · 1/10 · 27 July 2022]

I didn't think this was a (porn) movie even fit for release. The sole reason to put it out is as a curiosity, with a history behind it. Is it competently made? Is it erotic? Does it have a good 70's adult film storyline? No, no, and no.

This may be the most poorly filmed and unerotic 70's porn I've ever seen (in a genre where there's plenty to choose from!). And I'm a fanatic for them. Inarguably the best decade for adult films, weaving stories into sexual situations (even by the early 80's they were disposing of storylines). They can succeed or fail on so many levels! When they get it right (or very, very wrong), it's as entertaining to me as a real movie.

I can only liken Sexcula's production (minus the incoherent bizarro factor) with some amateur stuff you might see. Much of the movie takes place in a dark basement, where, good luck figuring out what the hell is going on. The "sex" for much of this is either totally obscured by an object (or body part), and things that might be graphic are obscured by shadows! Yeah, I don't think anyone was hired for lighting on this gig. Wait, there was the better-lit wedding sequence, where it actually does get graphic. Unfortunately, it goes on entirely too long, and, to put it frankly, is rather unpleasant.

Alright, I mentioned this film was not fit for a DVD release. Case-in-point: The synopsis of the movie on the back cover is wrong! That's how much effort was put into releasing it on DVD. The guy they hired to watch it, then write a summary, wasn't even paying attention! It says, a Marilyn Chambers lookalike in dual roles as Countess Suckula (she has one role, as the Countess), a buxom cutie with no qualms about lying naked on a table for the entire movie (not the Countess, but a creation of the doctor's, who has no feelings), and a horny bride who can't wait for her ring (yeah, the robot again). Also, the "female pleasure robot" is mentioned redundantly at the end. As for "Marilyn Chambers lookalike," yeah, that's definitely the Countess. Well, her hair was frosted like hers, anyway. Probably the most fetching chick in the movie.

If you want to follow this plot, good luck. I'll give it a try -- A man is reading this very story to his girl, on a picnic in a field. Woman just wants to have sex, guy is inexplicably enamored with the tale (Best part of the whole movie, she is riding on top of him, and he's still reading. Lasts 3 seconds). Dr. Fallatingstein creates herself a male sex toy to satisfy her needs. Only he can't perform. So she calls in Countess Suckula, who apparently has some sort of mystical powers to get him, uh, in the mood. This involves fantasy sequences, sometimes with him, sometimes not, only nothing seems to do the trick. Until... post-wedding orgy, an old priest FAKES IT with the young bride?! Really? He says he now understands love?! Cut to the end, where he implies he's NOT cured, then waves goodbye. What they were smoking up there, I don't know. I purposely left out the guy in a gorilla suit they house in an unlocked cage, and the horny, overweight, disfigured ogre. The less said, the better.

Acting is appalling all-around, which is usually part of the charm... I'd consider this insult to injury, in Suckula's case.

"When did you first discover sex?" "When I took a bath with my cousin."

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 8 August 2017]

Dr. Fellatingstein (Jamie Orlando) is a 19th century mad scientist who's created her own woman-made being, Frank (John Alexander). Frank was created for sexual purposes, but the guy just can't seem to get it up. In frustration. the good doctor calls in the Countess Sexcula (Debbie Collins), who tries various methods to get Frank stimulated. Unfortunately, he never remains stimulated for long.

Anachronisms abound gleefully in this oddball adults-only film, the only X rated picture to come out of Canada during this time. It flirts a little with classic sci-fi / horror, but it IS first and foremost a sex film. There's plenty of nudity and hardcore sex. In fact, the major set piece involves the filming of an impromptu orgy during a wedding. The whole enterprise just stops cold for this protracted set piece. One other major highlight involves some performance art enacted by an erotic dancer and a gorilla!

Obviously done on a budget, "Sexcula" isn't to be noted for its production value. But it manages to be fairly amusing, if overlong. It does know its audience and fulfills all requirements more than adequately. It's all set to a groovy rock score.

The ladies are lovely, and the performances are decent enough for this sort of thing. Alexander is frequently a hoot as a golly-gee-whiz sort of guy. Corpulent Tim Lowery hams his way through the role of a grunting, dim witted assistant named Orgie.

Hard to believe such a picture would have ever gotten made using tax shelter benefits, but that was the case here. The result was a pretty disastrous screening made for some industry bigwigs, who had no idea this was a porn film!

Six out of 10.

Really bad

[Dave_douell · 6 January 2019]

This is another porn movie not made for men. There is very little female nudity and plenty of male. I just get tired of the double standard. I guess men are just animals and nobody cares about male nudity. Crappy movie anyway.