Well, that was fast. Seriously, I totally did not expect to be back here doing another one of these so soon, but this time the non-horror movies just came one after the other, so here we are. Welcome to another "Not-Quite-Horror Quick Review".

You may remember the time I tackled notorious Italian exploitation director Joe D'Amato and his film Love Goddess of the Cannibals.  At the time I said "Overall, Love Goddess of the Cannibals is a watchable movie that has virtually no horror to speak of. Outside of a brilliant tribal ritual sequence, most of the movie is just a means to get decently-acted yet stupid characters to the next bit of nudity or sex scene (which, while the women are pretty, gets monotonous and boring very easily)." I stand by the characterization and it's 1.5 freakhead review, thank you very much. Now, as I've said previously, I am no prude (one need only look at my positive reviews of Bad Biology or Taxidermia to see that). That said, I do have a general rule when it comes to sex in horror... it needs to have a point or be part of a larger construct if you're going to overload the film with it. I'm fine with gratuitous nudity as much as the next guy, but when your movie becomes more softcore porn and less ANYTHING else, it's gonna be pretty torturous for me. Which brings us to today's topic:

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you House of Sin, a British sexploitation drama directed by Philip Gardiner:  The movie with easily one of the most misleading DVD covers I've ever seen. Consider:  That house on top? Not in the film. Those people below the title? Not in the film. The way "Sin" is all red and bloody? There's a bit of blood in the film, yes, but it's not some dark, depraved, horrific thing like it implies. And let's not forget that, once again, we're looking at a movie that has no idea how long it is. My blu-ray player claims an hour and 40 minutes, but THANK GOD that's way over. It includes special features in that count. The case itself?  It says it's 80 minutes. Noooo....that includes the making of featurette after the credits. No, folks, in actuality, this is an excruciatingly long-feeling 69 minute movie, not counting a minute or so of closing credits. Oh and by the way? This one's so indie it doesn't have an IMDB at the moment I'm typing this.

So what is House of Sin about? In some ways, your guess is as good as mine. Best I can tell, the movie is about a guy named Paul (played by Nik Spencer) who works in a strange sort of brothel... ish thing run by a guy named "The Mage" (played by John Symes). "The Mage" has some sort of mystic psychic power over people that convinces them to unleash their inhibitions (I admit the scene with the Christian woman complaining was amusing). He can also apparently heal injuries (????). Basically, the "plot" is that Paul is describing what it's like to work under "The Mage" and in his "House of Sin" and later, trying to improve or fix what "The Mage" created. That's literally it. Of the 69 minutes of actual run time, it feels like about 10-15 minutes or so is actual plot development.

Now, one reason I was fine doing the usual BHM review for Love Goddess of the Cannibals is because it has... wait for it... cannibals. Is the movie almost completely non-horror? Yes, but at least they throw in a GREAT cannibal ritual scene that showed that they tried. In another, not yet posted as I write this, review of a similar type of movie (currently the worst I've ever seen, by the way), we have the same kind of thing BUT at least there are vampires (bargain basement, low-rent vampires...BUT VAMPIRES!). There is NOTHING here relatable to horror at all. The story is basically nothing more than something to hang sex and strip scenes on, and the concept of this movie containing "dark desires" (as advertised) basically entails whipping, stripping, lesbianism, cross-dressing, and a dash of bondage. You know, all the things most movies do when they're trying to be "edgy" and "kinky". And while I'd rather not get into why or how, let's just say that kind of thing doesn't really "shock" me. Instead, it just bores me to no end because I literally have NO reason to be engaged in the movie because of the severe lack of actual plot and am not remotely aroused by what I'm seeing. Also, for the record, NO, your film is not an arthouse film.  Just because Paul says profound things about human nature does not make this garbage "classy". Also, I wouldn't say your film is exploitative of women... but it doesn't help your case when you broadcast your end credits onto and around a near-naked woman. Try again.

Positive things you ask? Well, I'll freely admit that some of the women are hot, though that, as in other movies I've reviewed, gets tired after a long...long time watching it. On the technical side, I'll also give the director this:  he can shoot a competent film. The sound design is on target as is the visual style, and the music is not too terribly annoying. Also, I should say that Nik Spencer is fairly decent as Paul. However there's so many banal attempts at eroticism around him that he kinda just drowns in the muck.

House of Sin gets 1 freakhead out of 5. If you want to make a softcore porno, make a softcore porno. Don't try and couch it as some "deviant" film or even as an art film. The director can obviously make a film that's well-shot. If he can actually flesh out a story so that the the scenes actually flow together, maybe he can produce something watchable. As it is, this is just a VERY mildly sexy mess that I do NOT recommend.

Until next time, this is Crypticpsych saying.... I did not know that playing chess with a panty-clad woman while you yourself are a cross-dressing male was a "thing" now. Live and learn I guess?

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE TRAILER FOR "HOUSE OF SIN" IN THE OSSUARY TRAILER GALLERY.  WARNING:  ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, NOT FOR KIDS.