O Garanhão Italiano

Definition of a Z-grade porno in America; if Porno Holocaust didn't do it for you, then neither will this. Yes, Sylvester Stallone is in it, that's really the only reason any of us have seen it save for the few true-blue perverts who just snuck in the theater in the raincoats and fake glasses and noses. It even got retitled to capitalize on Stallone's fame in the late 70s, ironic since they had to cut out a lot of the "graphic sex". Even more pointless when seeing the film unedited - there is a lot of nudity and "fake" sex. And it is so fake, good un-Godly almighty, that it makes late night Cinemax like Hotel Erotica look like the damn Bard! Wow is this some bad sex on film - one can tell the director just said "alright then, just uh, roll around, smoke some weed, camera will roll, I got to go do number two in the bathroom, it'll be a while."

And, sure, there are some moments of hilarity, and not always just because of Stallone's non-half-assed acting... such as at different times his "method" includes a training montage at the kid's playground, getting into a sexual frenzy after his girlfriend Kitty bites his you-know-what and, yes, she gets aroused by him *whipping her with a belt, or Stud's random moments of pre-Rambo "AAH!" anger that at one point gives him a bloody hand which Kitty licks of greedily like a vampire with down syndrome (note, this is not offense to down syndrome sufferers, only vampires). No, what makes Italian Stallion such an ultimate waste of time is that for all of its glorious pockets of celluloid that provide for the right and drunken viewer-ship some of the most potent MST3K possibilities around, there's so much tedium of relentless writhing around naked and dancing for FIVE MINUTES STRAIGHT to super-bad 70s music.

It gets by as a horrendous guilty pleasure for about 60% of the time. The rest of it is so bad a porno that it may be justified that it's been off the market until recently. No matter what the temptation out of curiosity, or the minuscule rewards, some shards from the time capsule of a career like Stallone's should stay put in its (however shallow) grave; in extremely small doses its some fun, and all at one it's like getting the brown acid at Woodstock.

I heard this was a 'porn' starring Sly Stallone. This stuff is certainly not X-rated, it could probably pass with an R today. No real plot, lots of nudity, but this definitely isn't porn. It's just a bunch of naked bodies rolling around in bed, on the floor, getting high, some spanking, some dancing, all set to a very cheezy disco soundtrack. I cannot even believe how awfully terrible, ridiculous and cheap this movie is. No reason to watch it, unless you just want to see Sly nude and limp. Reportedly, the director tried to blackmail Stallone with this movie for $100,000, and Sly said he wouldn't give them $2. He was right, because it would have been so not worth it, as this film is one of the most uninteresting films ever made.

The Party at Kitty and Stud's (1970)

* (out of 4)

Kitty (Henrietta Holm) and her lover Stud (Sylvester Stallone) have the greatest sex imaginable even though Stud has a bit of a temper at times. The two of them decide to have some of their friends over for a sex party.

This film would have long been forgotten had it not been for the fact that the producers got lucky and hired someone who six years later would write and star in ROCKY. That's right, this here is the notorious picture that Stallone made for $200 when he was desperate for work, living in the streets and basically just took whatever he could. Over the years the myth surrounding this film has gotten out of control with there being talk of it being a hardcore porn film. Well, that's certainly not the case but you have to give Stallone credit for at least talking about the film since so many actors try and hide things from their past.

This film is out there in a couple different versions including an "alternate" version under the title of Italian STALLION, which was obviously an attempt to cash in on the success of ROCKY and there's even music from that film that has been ripped off and placed here. It's funny to note that there's even a scene early on where Stallone is just running around a park, which, of course, would become a major piece to ROCKY when his character was running around the streets.

So, how is the actual movie? It's quite awful as it appears the director just grabbed a camera and was filming anything they could so that they could get the camera back to the rental place on time. The sex scenes are certainly never erotic and at times you're wondering to yourself what type of dope was being smoked especially during some of the bizarre and hilarious dance sequences. Just check out the circle dance towards the end and you'll see what I mean. The dialogue itself is so incredibly bad that I couldn't help but laugh incredibly hard at times. The awful dialogue pretty much makes the film worth watching.

As far as Stallone goes, well, his performance certainly isn't good but then again it's doubtful he was hired for acting. He basically just rolls around in bed with a few women, dances around naked and flexes in the mirror. Yes, he's got several full frontal nude shots here so I'm sure fans of his will want to see that. What's actually sad is that none of the sex scenes here are as laughable as the one in THE SPECIALIST so perhaps that's why Stallone is willing to freely talk about this thing. Either way, at best, this is just a curio for Stallone fans.

This film was a riot drawing unintended laughs and smiles right from the start, for a while. The scenes of obvious simulated sex, naked rolling bodies, ridiculous moaning, etc. Then there were the boring parts. Many poorly done scenes could have been overlooked if they were short but when they were extended to four or five minutes, it becomes monotonous. The five minutes to rinse and dry the bloodied hand would be a case in point. Stallone's extended muscle posing, the rolling around naked, the fun house mirror, the phony, fierce beating, the orgy (so erotic that the men never had an erection,) all quickly became boring. Of course, if they had been cut, the film would be less than an hour. Everything from story to photography was subpar or ridiculous. And the pubic hair! Natural is nice but three of the women could have won a prize for the darkest, fullest, most extensive pubic hair. If they shaved, they could sell it as a complete merkin (pubic wig.) The film rates about a 2 but the humor and Sly's presence raise it to a 4.

Looking at this film today, it's got lot less stuff in it, compare to any late night cable film. The film (ITALIAN STALLION) version seems to be cut (Playboy channel print ran 3 minutes short also, compare to the video print), as the filmmaker tacks in a ROCKY-like theme throught the film. Stallone plays stud, a guy Kitty loves as they throw a party with a bunch of drugged out losers. One guy (who resembles New York character actor Anthony Holland, could it be him?) gets stoned a says a joke about a horse, but the punchline was cut out for some reason. Stallone keep seeing this chick naked out in the New York park, also doesn't make sense. The ending is confusing as they all dance in circles. Stallone should've paid the producers of this film off to get this terrible film removed. I would like to see the original version of this film, for it would've been more interesting to see what they cut out. Not recommended.