Laura's Toys

Although quite a few of them were put to good use, LAURA'S TOYS aren't sexual aids, they're the people in her life. Laura (Rebecca Brooke) titillates her archaeologist husband Walter (hardcore porn king Eric Edwards again) with lascivious stories of her & her best friend Hanni's Swiss boarding school sexcapades as foreplay for the couple's active sex life together. However, that doesn't stop Walter from schtupping his attractive assistant Anna (it's a Joe Sarno movie, after all) when they're all at a dig for runes on a remote Swedish island. Meanwhile, Hanni and the boarding school "sewing circle" ditch their husbands once a year for sapphic getaways and they decide to track down Laura who plans to get even with her husband by throwing Anna to the lesbians...

Once again, in writer/director Joe Sarno's universe, all sex is fulfilling but, surprisingly, it isn't the only thing in life this time around and I would have liked to hear a little more about the Viking artifacts they found (outside of the stone phalluses high priestesses used, the subject's not explored). There may be other things in life but rest assured, sex is still a major priority and since everyone's having it, there's a happy ending that's an obvious advertisement for polygamy. There's a dreamy elegance about this high-gloss softcore "male fantasy" that shamelessly explores two of the directors pet fetishes: girl-on- girl sex and the notion that the past sexual entanglements of our youth exert a powerful pull on the rest of our lives. It looks to be something Joe's scared of because after Laura seduces Anna herself and Hanni beds both Walter and Anna, Laura gives a cock-blocking speech about how she's not gonna be Peter Pan anymore and gives Hanni the boot before she, Walter, and Anna link arms and decide to go off on another archaeological dig, this time to Peru.

That's not the only thing to suddenly go off the rails; Laura befriends Anna by not only telling her boarding school sexcapades, she reveals her jet-setting mother stole all of her boyfriends and in her later rejection of Hanni, Laura tells her childhood friend that the reason they drifted into a sexual relationship back in the day is because their mothers didn't love them, leaving them at school over summer vacation to fend for themselves. Oh, my. This time, the ravishing Rebecca Brooke's the titular puppeteer and just like in ABIGAIL LESLEY'S BACK IN TOWN, she's sure got her share of problems -all sexual in nature, of course. I've only seen two of her films but Brooke already looks to be the Susan Hayward of soft core porn.

"Laura's Toys," Joseph W. Sarno's 1975 erotic tale, explores the intricate web of desire, revenge, and sexual discovery. With a run time of 103 minutes, the film offers a more extended, character-driven approach to the adult film, emphasizing romance alongside its explicit content.

The story centers on Laura, a woman scorned, who enlists her former lesbian lover, Hanni, to seduce Anna, presumably her love interest's new partner, in an act of revenge. This triangle of women, driven by lust and emotion, forms the core of the film's appeal.

The performances by the three leads are a strong point. Eric Edwards, as the archeologist, brings a certain charm to the role, while Mary Mendum, as his wife, exudes a sultry, yet vulnerable, energy. Cathja Graff, resembling a young Jenny Agutter, adds a layer of innocence to her character, the rock doctor's assistant, caught in the midst of this passionate affair.

Sarno's direction ensures the film rises above the typical adult film fare of the time. His signature style is evident, emphasizing romance and the importance of sexual desire within the context of love. This is not merely a film about physical pleasure, but also the complexities of the heart.

That being said, the treatment of female bisexuality falls into a frivolous trope. The same-sex interactions between women feel like a recreational activity, devoid of the emotional depth that could have added a layer of authenticity to the story. This is a missed opportunity, especially given that the film already delves into the complexities of relationships and desire.

The film's setting on a Swedish island adds an exotic element, providing a visually appealing backdrop to the intimate scenes.

In conclusion, "Laura's Toys" is a mixed bag. While it offers a more nuanced approach to storytelling within the adult film genre, the lack of depth in its portrayal of bisexuality is a detractor. A film that will appeal to those seeking a blend of romance and explicit content, but one that could have benefited from a more progressive approach to its exploration of female desire.

A steamy, yet somewhat uneven, journey into the complexities of love and lust.

Laura's Toys is a well acted erotic film directed by Joe Sarno. The film stars Rebecca Brooke as Laura. Laura is married to Walter(played by adult film star Eric Edwards) who is an archaeologist. She is with him and his assistant Anna (played by Cathja Graff) while they are on a dig. Laura catches Anna and Walter sleeping together and plots revenge. Laura runs into old school friends with whom she shared many erotic adventures in school and uses these past relationships to seduce Anna. This film is similar to many Sarno films in that it is well acted, very erotic and well shot. Rebecca Brooke is an attractive woman who does well in this adult soap opera. I recommend this film to fans of 70's soft core erotica. Good film

I admit that I am a big fan of the more adult and explicit side of Joseph W. Sarno's film career (Butterfly, Kärleksön, Fäbodjäntan...). So, here is my great disappointment with the film we are dealing with today. A stupid plot (really, the role of an archaeologist was the best option to spice up the story?) and a tedious narrative rhythm. They spend the whole film telling sexual anecdotes as if we were in a confessional, instead of using the cinematic concept to show these stories in images.

Too much verbiage, a lot of text and not enough sex. And when they decide to show some skin, it turns out that they only do it from the waist up, without showing, at least, some of the explicit sex that is so much talked about (and that all of us "Sarnist" viewers would have enjoyed). Some breasts, lots of grimacing and arms moving out of frame, that's all you'll get here. And nothing else, because the story is very poorly written and very boring.

This should be adult cinema, not a pseudo drama of triangular love affairs with simulated (or out of frame) sex. And it's a shame because, although the actors are up to what is expected of a good erotic/pornographic project, it turns out that nobody really shows their respective talents in that area (Why choose Eric Edwards or Anita Ericsson to play erotic-dramatic roles, without any grace?). And that's Sarno's fault. His laziness in the project, and his clouded interpretation of morbidity. I'm sorry, but in that sense, Sarno was never up to Radley Metzger (or Henry Paris, as you like).

The gorgeous and sexy Mary Mendum spends the entire film with a circumspect expression, as if she didn't quite understand how to bring her character to life and colour. And the debut of the beautiful Cathja Graff could have been a sensational discovery in contact cinema, but she goes so unnoticed that we would never see her again in any other work (by her own decision or someone else's, it doesn't matter).

I got very bored subtitling it in my language for the commercial version, and that doesn't happen to me very often. And I'm very sorry because, although Sarno is a reference in the alternative adult cinema world, he has some works that are quite tiring due, in part, to that commercial need that demands the label "for (almost) all audiences".