The Joys of Jezebel

The Joys of Jezebel (1970)

** (out of 4)

The one and only Lucifer allows Jezebel to leave Hell and return to Earth under one condition. She must take over the body of the virgin Rachel but things don't go as planned.

THE JOYS OF JEZEBEL was produced by David F. Friedman and while it's not one of his best films it's at least mildly entertaining for fans of the genre. If you're expecting any sort of plot here then you can forget about it because the only "story" going on here is wall to wall sex. It's not really uncommon for these types of movies to be lacking on plots but this one here really takes that to a whole new level and what we've basically got is a sexploitation movie that seems a lot like those softcore pictures that would show up on Cinemax decades later.

I guess you can give credit to Friedman and director Peter Perry, Jr. credit for just delivering what the paying people wanted. If nudity is what you're looking for then you'll be happy to know that there's plenty here and even better is the fact that the majority of the women are extremely attractive. This is certainly true for Dixie Donovan (has to be a fake name!?!?!) who plays Rachel. She's a very beautiful blonde with a big pair of you know what. Not only is she easy on the eyes but she also gave a pretty decent performance all things considered.

Obviously THE JOYS OF JEZEBEL isn't going to be for everyone. At just 76-minutes the film does drag at spots but for the most part this is worth watching if you're a fan of the genre.

Somebody should do a retrospective on the career of sexploitation filmmaker Bethel Buckalew (well, not me, but SOMEONE should). Buckalew was kind of a pioneer in the sense that while a lot of other sexploitation filmmakers of that era were always messing around with plots and drama and things like that, Buckalew went right for the wall-to-wall sex, just like softcore porn movies all pretty much do today. In fact, Buckalew's films were basically early versions of hardcore porn films without the penetration (i.e. without those sexy extreme close-ups of Ron Jeremy's pistoning perineum), and it even took hardcore porn ten years or so to become as content-free as some of Buckalew's stuff. Of course, this is a pretty dubious accomplishment, and I am also being a little unfair to Buckalew. He did occasionally try (and for the most part fail) to make some real movies (more-or-less) like "Young Cycle Girls".

This film is interesting in that it shows a little more ambition than some of his films in that it's a costume drama and a morality tale (well, sort of), but at the same time it's still within Buckalew's obvious area of expertise (ie.non-stop softcore scromping). "Jezebel" is in hell after being torn apart by her husband "Josiah's" dogs. "Satan" decides to give her a chance to go back and get revenge by inhabiting the body (and what a body it is!) of a naive, bubble-breasted blonde bimbo named "Rachel". So she does--but not until after witnessing a long gratuitous infernal orgy. "Josiah" spends all his time orgying as well,so it's very likely the typical viewer will have "shot his wad" and/or fallen asleep before "Jezebel" ever gets her revenge, but oh, well. . .

The girl playing the virginal bimbo "Rachel" is unusually attractive and not a bad actress (although I'm not sure she's acting--Buckalew may have picked her up right off a bus at the Hollywood station and immediately cast her in this before she could even ask anyone for directions). "Satan" meanwhile is played by Christopher Stone, who was later married to Dee Wallace Stone. I find it perversely enjoyable to see the husband of "E.T."'s mom dressed in a cheap devil outfit and being orally serviced by a naked bimbo. It's funny how there never seems to be more than one or two degrees of separation between mainstream, family-friendly Hollywood and the porno industry. Of course, Stone is by far the best actor in this (and perhaps the only actor in this. . .) This is not that bad for a Bethel Buckalew film.

. sex scenes far too long? this is like criticizing a war-documentary of showing too many combat-scenes! Actually, they are beautiful, never vulgar, very sexy, gel and shadows masterly create a game of see/no see, drowned in deep blue and flashy (fleshy?) red, with a few surrealistic ideas (such as the animal-masks peeping into the frame). Very tricky the continuous switch between psychedelic shots and scenes shot in natural light, like between dream and reality, creating a even more sexy experience; the same goes for the scenes with the ugly, fatty male (again, taking the viewer on a level of reality). . ... Actresses don't show any degree of acting talent? Really? (I didn't notice at all, probably my senses were focused on other features....). All in all: Porn but no porn, a much underrated, audacious and sensible movie, and one of my all-time favorites!

SPOILER ALERT! This film literally goes to hell! The movie is one of those mildly erotic adult films that were so prevalent in the 60's and 70's PUSSYCAT theaters, drive-ins and grind houses everywhere.

The woman are pretty good looking and attractive (that's where the erotic part is and that's the only erotic thing about this film) but most of the guys are definitely in the unappetizing category to say the least.

The story and plot, such as they are, are not particularly good or involving.

Most of the sets are dark and bare; the photography is not especially good either. In fact, this film has all the earmarks of an Edward D. Wood Jr. film of the fifties. Really bad dialog (you can always watch it with the sound off and in fact I highly recommend that procedure) throughout.