Wild Spirit (Video 2003) Poster

(2003 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Quality softcore sex, but storyline stumbles
lor_29 March 2011
BEHIND THE FORBIDDEN DOOR delivers arousing soft X level sex scenes involving some quite attractive women for the fans, but its romantic ghost storyline falls apart.

Contrary to the no-nothing previous review posting on IMDb, this is not a hardcore porn film by any stretch of the imagination. The British release which I just viewed runs 90 minutes, over a reel longer than the U.S. "Wild Spirit" R-rated edition, but has the typical sex simulation camera angles and no insertions or money shots. Even an early simulated fellatio scene is quite brief, and shot in the hokey circa 1969/1970 manner of the actress coyly hiding any visual evidence of oral sex behind her hands.

I ordered this video after watching a Seduction Cinema opus EROTIC WITCH PROJECT 2 because it was the only other credit in IMDb for the interesting Black actress Rio. I was surprised to see that the database had garbled the credits (which I'm currently fixing); the Rio co-starring here as villainess Ingrid is a blonde Caucasian performer.

Ingrid is engaged to our hero Lionel Griffith, a self-help author and radio dj who likes to insult his listeners. She's plotting with her slimy lawyer to kill Lionel on their honeymoon (!) and make off with his money and insurance. This is not James Cain level writing, but I was surprised to see that popular starlet Brinke Stevens is credited as co-writing the defective screenplay (unfortunately for her fans she doesn't show up on screen).

Film uses a corny ghost motif, set in motion as Lionel and his 18-year-old girl friend are partying in 1985 on New Year's Eve, but she's about to leave him and move to Minnesota. Urquhart with his hair combed differently is ridiculously unconvincing as a fellow teen in this segment, but Krystal as Marion is a real beauty, with baby fat still intact.

Story picks up in 1995 with a ludicrous gimmick of electrical problems at Lionel's radio station, causing him to receive a mysterious phone call from Marion. It turns out, laboriously, that she's contacting him from beyond the grave, and later starts pestering him at his home, with only Lionel able to see her.

This "Topper" device does not yield any laughs, as the anonymous director of this nonsense is strictly on board to deliver the sort of simulated sex Cinemax fans are accustomed to watching on cable TV. It means 4-minute sex scenes with full frontal female nudity, plenty of pumping, and not the quick cutaways of the disappointing R-rated editions (as is the case here with the bowdlerized WILD SPIRIT version). It's not hardcore at all, just soft X.

Of the cast women beyond Krystal, villainess Rio is pretty hot but the most buxom femme is Kimberlyn, an enthusiastic blonde performer portraying Lionel's and Marian's school chum. Kelly Wales as Ingrid's trim & sexy masseuse is also a visual treat.

Helping to confuse matters, in England a film is marketed as a sequel under the title BEHIND THE FORBIDDEN DOOR 2: LUST CONNECTION, but it is merely Jim Wynorski's BUSTY TWINS aka LUST CONNECTION under a different name. Coming full circle, it IS from Seduction Cinema, the source of the Rio film that set me on this pointless (but for me essential, as I'm a stickler on identifying alternate titles) video quest.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Softcore Sexual Fantasy Will Be Of Abiding Interest Primarily To The Participants Themselves.
rsoonsa3 August 2007
This is a heavily edited (78 min.) softcore reconstruction of a hardcore pornographic movie named BEHIND THE FORBIDDEN DOOR that was released solely outside the United States, although not all members of the cast take part in the explicit action featured within the original work. Playing in both editions is flat, thereby matching an unimaginative screenplay that allows for frequent disrobing in order to heighten the picture's commercial possibilities. This rather lifeless film opens upon New Year's Eve, 1984/5, with two young couples frolicking upon a large lawn, property belonging to the parents of one of the girls, Marian ("Krystal"), and when her mother and father return to their home unexpectedly, the other three lovers flee, leaving Marian behind, but not before she and her swain Griff (Rafe Urquhart) exchange pledges of everlasting love. Action then hops forward ten years, where we see Griff as host of a successful pop therapy call-in radio program, and soon to be married to guileful and unfaithful Ingrid ("Rio"), who additionally is plotting along with an attorney friend to murder her fiancé in order to obtain his money, all while empty-headed Marian (empty of body as well since she has been dead for the mentioned ten year span, killed in a traffic collision, unknown to Griff) has returned as a phantom with an objective of cajoling her former beau into accepting a daunting task: tardily extirpating her virginity. This is all quite silly, of course, and not helped in the least within this lightly financed trifle by what is essentially non-existent direction that lacks even a negligible point of view, along with largely non-professional actors, of whom the females are for the greatest part veterans of the "adult film" industry. Here there are, for voyeurs, forms of simulated erotic activity for nearly all tastes, excepting good.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This kind of thing can be "good"
MBunge15 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
You know, it is possible to make a good softcore skin flick. Well…okay, maybe not good in the traditional sense of the word. T he fairly degrading nature of the genre pretty much precludes that. You can, however, make a softcore skin flick that doesn't make you feel like punching yourself in the face while you watch it. Yes, your actors won't be very good but they can at least not embarrass themselves. Yes, your script will be fairly dumb but it can at least have some primitive logic to it. Yes, your direction is going to be elementary but it can at least look like a film and not some corporate training video. And yes, your actresses are not going to look like Venus emerging from the surf but they can at least look better than your average truck stop whore. All of those things are possible. They just didn't happen with this movie.

For starters, there's only one truly attractive woman in this cast. There are two others that are okay and then there are a couple that you wouldn't take home with you unless it was 3 am and you'd had way too much to drink. One of them is almost the perfect stereotype of the sad female who never gets higher than the ass end of show business. She's too thin with obviously fake boobs, fish lips and is clearly too old to be taking her clothes off on screen in the hopes it might lead to something better. And the other one looks even older than that.

The sex scenes in Wild Spirit are also pathetic. They're incredibly brief and about as non-explicit as you can get and still merit an R rating. These sorts of movies tend to get re-edited and then passed off under different titles, so there might be a more graphic version out there. I doubt it's any real improvement. Bad camera work and poorly simulated sex doesn't get better in larger quantities. As disappointing as the sex scenes are, there also aren't enough of them. This sort of motion picture needs at least one person taking their clothes off every ten minutes. It's the only reason anyone watches these things and Wild Spirit has too many long stretches where nobody's getting naked.

Out of the cast, the only one who comes off as a legitimate actor is Rafe Urquhart as the male lead. He doesn't exactly give a great performance but seems to have the basic tools to have made some commercials and even landed a supporting role on TV here and there if he'd gotten the right breaks. The rest look like the producers drove a van around LA and hired "actors" off the street like migrant workers.

As for the script? Well, it includes a scene where a ghost has a dream sequence. There's another scene where the screenwriters confuse a séance with an exorcism with Manchurian Candidate-style brain washing. I've seen car assembly line robots behave more like believable human beings than these characters. And there's a bit a writing here that ranks among the most idiotic I've ever encountered. The leading man has a best friend. The best friend goes to his new girlfriend's house to have sex. After they boink, the leading man shows up to talk to his best friend and the girlfriend leaves her own house to stay with a neighbor so the two guys can spend the night at her place. Let me repeat that. She leaves her own home to sleep somewhere else so her boyfriend and his best friend can be alone together all night at her place. I would bet a million dollars that no female has ever done something like that since the first new amphibian crawled out of the primordial sea. I'd like to think that co-writers Ted Newsom and Brinke Stevens realized what a ludicrous scenario they concocted and were simply too lazy to fix it, but they could just be that stupid.

I won't blame director C.B.Tilden for the sex scenes because, as previously mentioned, they may have been butchered in re-editing. What I will blame him for is having dialog scenes that ramble on and on and on, camera work so boring it'd put a meth addict to sleep and that séance/exorcism/brainwashing montage which is amazingly inartful. I don't care how terrible it was on the page, Tilden brought it to freakish life as this bizarre collage of disconnected and ridiculous imagery.

You can make a "good" softcore skin flick. Wild Spirit isn't it. This isn't even an average or mediocre effort. It plain stinks. You'd be better off digging up a 1975 JC Penny catalog and staring at the bra section, otherwise known as farm kid porn. It's still kind of degrading, but you won't want to punch yourself in the face.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed