After her husband leaves her and she is unable to pay the bills "Yvette Talman" (Dyanne Thorne) seduces a bill collector at the instigation of her live-in boyfriend "Roy Minton" (Richard Tatro) to settle the debt. It's at this time that Roy gets an idea to increase their incomes many times over by taking advantage of the fact that the housewives in this particular suburb are extremely lonely and many of them are having affairs to resolve the situation. That being the case, he reasons that--for a certain price--he can introduce them to several different lovers at a discreet location and with certain safety features to protect their identities. Soon his plan becomes a complete success-at least for him. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk spoiling it I will just say that this was a very risqué film for this particular era. I especially liked the manner in which Roy was cleverly depicted as the devil with his customers appearing as his followers. Likewise, although Dyanne Thorne was unrecognizable to me I thought there were a couple of fairly pretty actresses involved with Marla Ellis (as "Lisa Francis") standing out among them. On the other hand, I found the music--which played incessantly throughout the film-to be quite annoying. But overall I thought that this was a pretty good sexploitation film for the particular time-period and I rate it as slightly above average.
12 Reviews
The 1960's Were Never This Sexy - Shocking, Fun, Non-Stop Action, w A Great Cast
Real_Review9 May 2019
When you watch this movie, test this hypothesis: with a little bigger budget, some proper editing, and a little more time, 'Sin In The Suburbs' could have been a great film. Kudos to Joe Sarno.
RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1 Casting - 1/1 Directing - 1/1 Story - 1/1 Writing/Screenplay - 1/1
Total Base Score = 5
Modifiers (+ or -)
Believability/Consistency: -0.5 Extraordinary Actor Chemistry: 1 ( Judy Young aka Alice Linville & Dyanne Thorne aka Lahna Monroe ) Distractingly Poor Editing: - 0.5
Total RealReview Rating: 5 (If, on a quantum level, multiple 5's can have various degrees and sizes, then the 5 attributed to 'Sin In The Suburbs' is a HUGE 5.)
RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1 Casting - 1/1 Directing - 1/1 Story - 1/1 Writing/Screenplay - 1/1
Total Base Score = 5
Modifiers (+ or -)
Believability/Consistency: -0.5 Extraordinary Actor Chemistry: 1 ( Judy Young aka Alice Linville & Dyanne Thorne aka Lahna Monroe ) Distractingly Poor Editing: - 0.5
Total RealReview Rating: 5 (If, on a quantum level, multiple 5's can have various degrees and sizes, then the 5 attributed to 'Sin In The Suburbs' is a HUGE 5.)
Interesting Grindhouse/Art Film,"Eyes Wide Open."
rufasff1 February 2000
It is too easy to dismiss "Sin In The Suburbs" as mere camp, Joe Sarno has some serious things on his mind and his efforts show results. His movie resembles Cassavettes and Warhol, but I think Sarno was a better filmmaker than either one one of them; he uses a porno house plot to explore the emotional depths of sexuality.
The Suburban milieu is once again viewed as a repressionland but unlike "American Beauty" it is populated not by walking cheap shots, but by real, unsentimental characters. Sarno's method's sound somewhat like Mike Leigh's; but working one imagines under much greater time and budget constraints, his results are more hit and miss. The wall to wall jazz is a big problem.
The Grindhouse boys once took a Bergman Film and tried to sell it as porno, one can only wonder what they made of Sarno;
The Suburban milieu is once again viewed as a repressionland but unlike "American Beauty" it is populated not by walking cheap shots, but by real, unsentimental characters. Sarno's method's sound somewhat like Mike Leigh's; but working one imagines under much greater time and budget constraints, his results are more hit and miss. The wall to wall jazz is a big problem.
The Grindhouse boys once took a Bergman Film and tried to sell it as porno, one can only wonder what they made of Sarno;
Sinful - NOT
spelvini17 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This 'midnight' movie from 1964 rates high on the sleaze factor, and aside from the inept scripting and bad acting, director Joe Sarno manages to give us something interesting in some of the camera framing and some of the ideas in the story. If you can stay awake past the mind-numbingly slow exposition and get to the nub of the story the movie does gain momentum, albeit to a muddled climax.
In a small New England town Geraldine Lewis (Audrey Campbell) becomes bored when her workaholic husband ignores her and she gets interested in other men, and begins taking extramarital afternoon trysts with a neighborhood friend and another man. Her daughter Kathy (Alice Linville), just beginning to understand her feelings about personal relationships comes home early from school one day to discover her mother in a clinch. Shocked and confused Kathy confides to neighbor Yvette Tallman (Dyanne Thorne) and the older woman seduces the young girl. Yvette and her incestuous brother Lou (W.B. Parker) initiate and organize a neighborhood sex-swap ring and Geraldine and others are lured in but danger is imminent when under-age Kathy is brought in too.
This is Dyanne Thorne's first film, after which she went on to other cult faves like Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS, and other sleaze-founded films. Thorne will delight the male viewer s her character is a voluptuous coquette who seduces men and women for whatever she wants. Not an actress Thorne manages to present to the camera two emotive states seducing and just plain nothing. As a support co-star she could've been better with a better script, maybe.
The real actress is Judy Young who plays Kathy. Her performance is muted, substantial, and detailed and she shows the viewer the real soul of the film. It is too bed that this actress never got a real break. The best thing she was able to accomplish is a guest-starring role on Welcome Back Kotter.
The film does have some good moments. Cinematography by James J. Markos and camera work is good even though lighting is laughable. The way actors move in and out of frame restricts the viewer from gaining all the information and his bit of creativity allows a more dynamic connection with the story.
In a small New England town Geraldine Lewis (Audrey Campbell) becomes bored when her workaholic husband ignores her and she gets interested in other men, and begins taking extramarital afternoon trysts with a neighborhood friend and another man. Her daughter Kathy (Alice Linville), just beginning to understand her feelings about personal relationships comes home early from school one day to discover her mother in a clinch. Shocked and confused Kathy confides to neighbor Yvette Tallman (Dyanne Thorne) and the older woman seduces the young girl. Yvette and her incestuous brother Lou (W.B. Parker) initiate and organize a neighborhood sex-swap ring and Geraldine and others are lured in but danger is imminent when under-age Kathy is brought in too.
This is Dyanne Thorne's first film, after which she went on to other cult faves like Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS, and other sleaze-founded films. Thorne will delight the male viewer s her character is a voluptuous coquette who seduces men and women for whatever she wants. Not an actress Thorne manages to present to the camera two emotive states seducing and just plain nothing. As a support co-star she could've been better with a better script, maybe.
The real actress is Judy Young who plays Kathy. Her performance is muted, substantial, and detailed and she shows the viewer the real soul of the film. It is too bed that this actress never got a real break. The best thing she was able to accomplish is a guest-starring role on Welcome Back Kotter.
The film does have some good moments. Cinematography by James J. Markos and camera work is good even though lighting is laughable. The way actors move in and out of frame restricts the viewer from gaining all the information and his bit of creativity allows a more dynamic connection with the story.
Fictional anthropology
kadar18 December 2004
With very limited resources at this disposal (the budget, shooting time, and acting talent were clearly in short supply), Sarno has combined a poor plot with an almost anthropological approach to encapsulating the fashions (hair and clothing) and the physical landscape of domestic split-level commuter suburbia (Long Island, perhaps?) in the mid-1960s.
The visual titillation is very minimal, alas, so this isn't much of a sexploitation treat, but it does serve as almost a work of cinema verite, brought about by lack of resources for depicting anything beyond recording that physical milieu directly and accurately.
There is also some attempt as social commentary -- everyone's house is the same, and all the breadwinners (male, of course) take the 7:21 train into the city and return on the 6:35, while their wives stay home and try to fend off boredom). Too bad that Sarno wasn't given enough resources to develop and capture a vision.
As it is, this is sort of a proto-indie movie, wherein the filmmaker was allowed some degree of personal expression within the straitjacket of the highly inhibited sexploitation genre of the era.
SiTS would have benefited from more flesh, and more fleshing out. A nice curiosity nevertheless.
The visual titillation is very minimal, alas, so this isn't much of a sexploitation treat, but it does serve as almost a work of cinema verite, brought about by lack of resources for depicting anything beyond recording that physical milieu directly and accurately.
There is also some attempt as social commentary -- everyone's house is the same, and all the breadwinners (male, of course) take the 7:21 train into the city and return on the 6:35, while their wives stay home and try to fend off boredom). Too bad that Sarno wasn't given enough resources to develop and capture a vision.
As it is, this is sort of a proto-indie movie, wherein the filmmaker was allowed some degree of personal expression within the straitjacket of the highly inhibited sexploitation genre of the era.
SiTS would have benefited from more flesh, and more fleshing out. A nice curiosity nevertheless.
Joe Sarno's delightfully smart and racy 60's soft-core classic
Woodyanders4 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Extremely prolific and dependable low-budget soft-core independent filmmaker Joe Sarno scored one of his biggest hits with this hugely enjoyable and for the time quite daring sexploitation gem. A bunch of bored suburbanites join a secret sex cult in which all the members wear masks and robes ala Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut." When pretty teenager Kathy Lewis (nicely played by the fetching Alice Linville) discovers that her adulterous mother Geraldine (a fine performance by the lovely Audrey Campbell of "Olga" infamy) is having an affair, she falls under the seductive spell of sultry cult leader Yvette Talman (a perfectly commanding portrayal by the almighty Dyanne Thorne of "Ilsa" notoriety). Writer/director Sarno presents a bold and revealing expose of sleepy upper middle class small American town morality and hypocrisy, depicting the wild debauched stuff that goes on behind closed doors with considerable incisiveness and commendable restraint (the nudity is quite mild and the on-screen sex surprisingly chaste). Sarno also gives the interesting characters an unusual amount of depth and elicits mostly solid acting from a sturdy cast. W.B. Parker in particular excels with his deliciously smarmy turn as supremely sleazy and sinister sex cult ringleader Louis Muse; Parker's rich, yet gravelly baritone voice and creepy screen presence suggest a seedy straight deviant version of Harvey Fierstein. Sam S. Fiedel's groovy swinging jazz score further enhances the kinky fun. James J. Markos' crisp black and white cinematography likewise does the trick. Although rather tame by today's standards, this vintage 60's blast still nonetheless overall qualifies as a real wicked treat.
most significant in the development of sex in US movies
christopher-underwood12 January 2007
8/10 may be just a little generous for this b/w number but it has been made with surprising care and what we may be lacking in wide expanses of naked flesh is certainly made up for in dramatic storyline and non stop action. Pity we don't see more of the masked activities but we have to remember how early this is and that in many films around this time the title was as sexy as it gets. Here at least we get lots of enthusiastic fumblings, much suggestion of developing depravity and a sense that everyone is at it including the teenagers (and not with each other!). Nicely over the top performance in male lead who is trying to emulate his childhood hero, the circus ringmaster! Plus his sister(?) who is none other than Dyanne Thorne who will later transmogrify into the infamous, 'Ilsa' and 'Olga' is here too with a couple of cohorts later to be seen in 'Olga's House of Shame' So, fun enough to watch and most significant in the development of sex in US movies.
The Sin in the suburbs was much greater than I expected.
kurtaxis21 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There was one particular scene where the daughter of Audrey Campbell (Ms. Olga herself may she RIP) ran to the arms of none other than Queen Ilsa before she was Ilsa (Dyanne Thorne). But of course it wasn't so simple, there was embellishment: the pulsing base of a Jazz tune, whose cadence represented a racing heartbeat and Thorne's (her character's name is Yvette Talman) slowly disrobing with a seductive sashay as she gingerly approached her young devotee.
Such a presentation turned what could have been a mild scene to a robust form of art.
No simple display of nudity here there was feeling and mood throughout.
Such a presentation turned what could have been a mild scene to a robust form of art.
No simple display of nudity here there was feeling and mood throughout.
Entertaining Sarno Drama
Michael_Elliott24 January 2018
Sin in the Suburbs (1964)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
A group of housewives are so sad because their love life is a downright bore due to their boring husbands. The neighbors eventually join a sex club where they get more than they bargained for.
Swinging is something that writer-director Joe Sarno dealt with throughout his film career and that's the main plot point of SIN IN THE SUBURBS. If you're a fan of Sarno's work then you know that he often told "dirty" stories but he never really went into straight sexploitation at this point in his career. Instead the director delivered more "art" than "softcore" porn and that's what really sets him apart from others of this era.
I think there are a lot of good things going on in the film but at the same time there's no question that the screenplay itself isn't the strongest and the director actually made a much better swinger film a few years later with THE SWAP AND HOW TO MAKE IT. That film is certainly much better but this one here does offer up a few interesting characters and some decent performances.
As is usually the case, the cinematography is another major plus and there's no question that the film looks quite good. My biggest complaint is that the film just didn't always hold my attention. With that said, some have said that Stanley Kubrick ripped off various elements here and used them iN EYES WIDE SHUT. Who knows whether or not Kubrick actually saw this film but there are some striking similarities.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
A group of housewives are so sad because their love life is a downright bore due to their boring husbands. The neighbors eventually join a sex club where they get more than they bargained for.
Swinging is something that writer-director Joe Sarno dealt with throughout his film career and that's the main plot point of SIN IN THE SUBURBS. If you're a fan of Sarno's work then you know that he often told "dirty" stories but he never really went into straight sexploitation at this point in his career. Instead the director delivered more "art" than "softcore" porn and that's what really sets him apart from others of this era.
I think there are a lot of good things going on in the film but at the same time there's no question that the screenplay itself isn't the strongest and the director actually made a much better swinger film a few years later with THE SWAP AND HOW TO MAKE IT. That film is certainly much better but this one here does offer up a few interesting characters and some decent performances.
As is usually the case, the cinematography is another major plus and there's no question that the film looks quite good. My biggest complaint is that the film just didn't always hold my attention. With that said, some have said that Stanley Kubrick ripped off various elements here and used them iN EYES WIDE SHUT. Who knows whether or not Kubrick actually saw this film but there are some striking similarities.
suburbanism 60s style
chrislawuk11 August 2020
I love it when I see a little film like this that no ones ever seen. Theres something about the sets which really throw you in to America 60s suburban life; the curtains, the architectural lay out of the houses. It provides something a big budget polished hollywood movie can never provide. There is a striking similarity to Eyes Wide Shut the film Kubrick died before finishing. The theme is definately perverse, but its a pretty tame movie really by todays standards. Can't recommend it enough, its a cult classic in my book
Sleazy fun!
Aaron-1723 September 1998
Sleazy, cheesy fun from the sexually-repressed early 1960s. Complete with jazzy soundtrack, freeze-frames, fervent coupling in kitschy bedrooms and silly costumes for the not-so-shocking "shock" ending. Stands out among the pioneering "adult" films.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
