Sunday, 8 May 2011

Review: Man Trap

Okay, I'll admit it. I'd never heard of Joybear Productions until last week. Yossarian seems to like them, and I trust him (for some reason), and I'm well-disposed towatrd them at the moment since they sent me a free copy of their latest film, Man Trap, to review. Free porn always gets a thumbs-up from me; free porn which breaks my DVD drive less so. Nevertheless, after some clever (read: opportunistic) thievery (read: polite asking) from my mother, I managed to watch Man Trap. Herewith the review.

Man Trap is presented as a pseudo-documentary, almost Panorama style. A journalist named Oliver McDowel, played by Oliver McDowel (wildly original casting there), is interviewing a demure older lady named Kelly Rafelle, who is the founder of a service named Man Trap. This service uses girls to catch cheating men by setting up honeytraps, leading to Kelly being awarded the title of "Queen of Relationship Interference 2011" by - get this - Break-Up Magazine.

I don't like this premise already. Only men cheat? What? And you set up your husband/boyfriend to have sex with another girl? Following this by breaking up with him? For future reference, Joybear, I've been cheated on. Several times. By the same girl. And I forgave her, and worked on the relationship. Christ, people seem loose in porn these days.

Anyway, deep breath...

So. Man Trap tells various stories in flashback style, with a little narration by Kelly. Each story consists of a long sex scene which pertains to something the Man Trap service has done. That's the entire film, and I guess this is a hardcore porn film, so you get what you've paid for.

Scene one focuses on a married couple, who got married despite investigation by Man Trap. It seems an odd scene to open on, and due to the fact that Man Trap didn't get involved anyway, it does beg the question: why play the sex scene through at all? It's irrelevant. It's filmed well - lots of sensual undressing, many kisses, lots of oral, standard penetration and a convincing female orgasm - but it doesn't lend much to the plot.

Scene two is more relevant: a photoigrapher having sex with his model (who is actually a plant by Man Trap). I'm not a fan of the aggressive dialogue provided here, but there's less undressing time, more oral, and some sex. As Kelly then goes on to explain, this led to some exploration, as scene three shows his improbably attractive wife, who is apparently a TV presenter, having lesbian sex with the same girl (including an oddly-shaped vibrator being used on her breasts and vagina), while her husband takes pictures. Because that's what happens, apparently.

Scene four is an example of "entertainment" provided by Man Trap - a female pianist plays some classical music, and them joins another girl who oil up a guy tied to a chair, then suck him off blindfolded, and have sex with him in a threesome. I guess that counts as entertainment.

Scene five tells a story: a woman, who is an animal lover, has a husband who have been spending a lot of time with a gay fitness instructor, but he's not gay. In fact, he's just getting fit in order to do a show to raise money for their dog, who has - get this - dog leukaemia. His wife is ashamed that she thought he was cheating with a man, and they have sex. Lame dialogue, and then yet more oral, penetration and clit-slapping (for some reason).

And the final one, scene six, has a Man Trap girl having sex with a random guy by a swimming pool, followed by him stealing her numbers and details, because - shock - he is from a rival company.

As you can probably tell if you've read this far, I've done nothing but recount the scenes. But that's all that I feel I can do. I'm not a big fan of hardcore, and when there are six scenes in a row, they need to be special to interest me. But they all follow the same hardcore conventions, even the lesbian one: lots and lots of oral sex, unbearably long close-ups of penetrative sex (where's the rest of the body, guys?), loud fake moaning, and the inevitable money shot. It's the same damn formula six times in a row. I watched it all the way through...

...and I was bored.

I know, maybe I'm not the target audience. But the premise - sexist as it might seem - is pretty okay. The acting's not great (and the "twist ending", which I won't spoil here in case any of you watch it, is no surprise at all), but then it's not supposed to be. It's a sex film - you're watching it for the sex. And were this a softcore film, it would work. It totally would. Some of the set-ups for the scenes aren't too bad. Soft porn would fit in well.

But it's not softcore. I hear there is a soft version, but that just means the majority of the sex is cut out, like the soft version of Pirates. And the hardcore bored me - there was too much of it to be totally engaging. And where was the music? There was hardly any, except for a few repetitive strains in the background. I want music to my sex, dammit - have the classical pianist keep playing!

I'm sorry, Joybear. I really am. I tried to like this film, I really did. But it just didn't grab me. I like sex, but there was too much of it - and as it was all so formulaic, I knew exactly what was coming next. But I felt a bit let down. I guess I didn't exactly know what the film was supposed to be like, as I'm hardly a hardcore expert, but a bit of variety (and better music!) would have been nice. And so I feel like I do with so many mainstream films these days: the concept's fine - as is the initial premise. But the contents - pretty boring.

Sadly, I don't have much else to say.

No comments: