Black Emanuelle - Stunden wilder Lust

If pernicious is a stronger word for ugly, then it applies here, but I'm not referring to the "snuff" footage sequence, I'm referring to the non-sex/non-horror scenes. They're so unbelievably boring and poorly acted that you could end up leaving the theatre (or living room) and missing out on the sleaze.

The film's soundtrack is outstanding and captures the era wonderfully.

As always, Laura Gemser is captivating and too sexy for words, and the film's explicitness verges on hardcore for most of the time and crosses the softcore line once or twice.

But it's the "snuff" footage sleaze fans want and it doesn't disappoint. Almost SALO-esque in its intensity and terribly well executed, it arrives in context but blurs its context quickly because it is unexpectedly extreme and realistic.

Worth seeing once or twice. Or owning, if the inclination's there.

Ah, that Joe D'Amato...you can't help but watch his films no matter how curiously interesting or just plain bad they are. If it weren't for the explicit versions, I think most folks would forget about them soon after viewing, unless just gawking at naked gals here and there in the guise of a "legitimate film" is your kind of thing. The BIG problem with Emanuelle In America is that it can't make up its mind if it wants to be mere exploitation or hardcore, as it bounces back and forth but never really completes those goals.

Li'l Miss Sexpot herself Laura Gemser is "Miss Emanuelle" who will travel anywhere and subject herself to any danger in order to get an ultimate story to further her journalistic endeavors (her sneaking around and snapping pics reminded me a lot of later Charlie's Angels adventures). She joins a harem of sorts and fondles women and watches bestiality, mingles with horny aristocrats, gets an expose of a women's pleasure resort (ah, finally a bunch of naked men in a movie), and shmoozes with bad men behind a snuff film ring. Yes, a film like this DOES need lots of sex to keep it going, but it's strange how much of it doesn't show up until much later.

When sex scenes start, they end abruptly like a bad tease. During the sex, lots of jumpcuts jar the viewer so that it's not easy to get any pleasure out of viewing it. When hardcore footage appears, it usually never "finishes" (okay, there's a lack of money shots). When there ARE money shots, the scene has zipped by so fast you wonder if you were supposed to get excited or think that folks finish sexual encounters within one minute or less. Sex scenes in films like this are usually intended to arouse, and these leave you somewhat confused.

Here is where I DEFEND something about this film: Those people who are only turned on by shaved, squeaky-looking pretty people in porn should not be so harsh to those of us who actually like a bit of body hair on men, or if women aren't so artistically trimmed. I have a feeling that most are bitching about the "hairy men" because of the bearded guy in the hut (in the Tarzan fantasy sequence). If anything, his hirsute appearance enhanced the energy of the too-brief scene, and I'm sure there are plenty of folks that appreciated a natural-looking man instead of plastic pretty boys. As for the women, it's funny how so many "reviewers" are calling the actresses unattractive -- seems there are too many men out there that have ridiculously high standards for women. I didn't find these women unattractive; if anything they seemed real and still even out of the league that most of the drooling heterosexual viewers would ever get in real life. You know the kind, guys with beer guts who wear hats and t-shirts that say "No Fat Chicks" and think that all women are inherently bisexual. I say HOORAY for '70s hairy porn, let's have more of it!

For me, instead of being creeped out by physically follicle-blessed men, I was creeped out by the sordid footage of the snuff films. Instead of a glimpse of one, we are subjected to several scenes of it, and it reminds me of those harsh slasher films that get women naked before they are dismembered. Are we supposed to be aroused by the nudity AND the physical violence at the same time? Otherwise, why so much of it in this film? I say fill out the other basic hardcore sex scenes more, and less of the poles and hooks being used as sexual torture. And to think David Cronenberg got his inspiration for "Videodrome" from this film.....eek!

So, take a look at Emanuelle In America so you can say you saw it, and if you got a kick out it, then it's actually okay. I saw it as a curiosity that had to be done and over with. It just really felt like a longgggg tease to me, so that I had to dig into my stash of hairy '70s porn afterwards to feel satiated!

The late smutpeddler, Joe D'amato, has released hundreds of disgustin' sleaze epics but the 100 min. uncut version of "Emanuelle In America" takes the cake. Horsemasturbation, hardcore porn, castrations and the most vile "snuff" images you ever will see on film. Canadian maverick David Cronenberg was actually inspired by this flick to make his masterpiece, "Videodrome". Forget "Salo", "Caligula", "Man Bites Dog", "Man Behind The Sun" and "Cannibal Holocust" cuz this one will eat your mind!

EMANUELLE IN AMERICA is clearly a testament to the declining CineCitta film industry of this time. Exploitation film-makers were being forced to throw genres together in bizarre hybrids to try and cover as many commercial bases as possible.

This film, without doubt, is the flat out WEIRDEST example of that I've ever seen. The first 50 minutes or so play like a typically flaccid D'Amato softcore sex movie, before kicking into high octane with hardcore bestiality footage, hardcore porn, and pretty grueling "snuff" footage (shot in a verite, hand-held and shaky style that reminds me of the latter half of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST). None of it really fits together well within the narrative (particularly the XXX footage which is clearly spliced in from another film) and all the excessive stuff is quite brief. I don't really understand what the commercial motivation for the production of this film was, but that certainly interests me. The whole film has an air of not being complete, especially when you consider the bizarrely truncated ending.

An interesting and VERY sleazy watch, but don't expect the rest of the film to be anything but appalling. D'Amato's straight horror (specifically BLUE OMEGA and ABSURD) do the job way more for me, and I usually love sleaze with all my grimy heart. Before anyone yells at me, the copy I own is the "fully uncut" Venezuelan print so I really don't think I'm missing anything here.

A good film by sleaze-master Joe D'Amato? No chance. Wait a minute, this one actually isn't too bad. Emanuelle's (notice, one "m", not Emmanuelle ©) forays into the aristocratic decay lifestyle get weirder and sleazier, culminating in the snuff footage in the end (modeled after Pasolini's "Salo", how ironical). It's not all bleak however, as Joe has a sense of humor. Case in point, Emanuelle and cohort having sex in the next room to an orchestra playing, and hysterically editing the sex with close-ups of the geek musos playing Ludwig's fifth. Or what about the ending? Emanuelle getting a vacation as a reward for her investigative journalism, only it turns to be a movie decor. It is only a movie after all. Hah.