Freudus Sexualis (1962) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
More than a sexploitation picture
Leofwine_draca7 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
As the title would suggest, FREUDUS SEXUALIS is something a little more than your typical sexploitation flick of the mid 1960s. It's a cheap American indie, shot in black and white in the countryside somewhere, about a couple of newlyweds who discover some problems in their marriage. I found this little picture quite interesting for what it is. It's shot through as an art-house film with lots of imagery, and the sex and nudity, although prevalent, doesn't really feel all that sleazy. I could have done without all of the padding involving farmers at work, but the twist ending is worthwhile and at its best this recalls the atmospheric work of an auteur like Jean Rollin.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Primitive, pompous porn
lor_24 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Release title invokes Sigmund Freud, while the sub title/alternate title invokes Biblical injunctions in this tiresome soft porn entry, made available to a new generation by good ole Something Weird.

John Haveron and Mary Harrigan portray the story's unmemorable Adam & Eve figures, with plenty of narration (it's another cheapie MOS shoot) as John is a soldier returning home to reclaim his family's farm and getting married. Okay musical score enhances a romantic mood.

But the tone changes quickly on wedding night when a very poorly matched body double (brunette vs. blonde) subs for Mary in the simulated sex footage. Lisa Rolland pops up as a sultry brunette literally named Jezebel arriving in a sporty Corvette -she goes skinny dipping but us poor slobs in the audience don't get to see much -tarnation!

An idiotic flashback aping the then-recent hit TOM JONES is set in wartime France with a girl sucking sexily on a chicken bone. Back in the present Jezebel is caught teasing (her bare breasts are never shown) John, getting him in trouble with wifey. Chintzy approach has footage merely repeated where desired -too obvious to fool the viewer.

SPOILER ALERT:

Something finally happens when John fights with his neighbor, eliciting a cheaply gory makeup effect when an axe is applied to the male neighbor's forehead, cueing hoary narration invoking religious repentance.

This silent film has a peculiar quality, probably because its content and approach seems to predate cinema entirely -a 19th Century approach more suited to a preacher at a tent show. Filmmaker William Starkey (perhaps a transatlantic forebear of Ringo's?) doesn't seem ready for prime time.

The cinematographer Kenneth Van Sickle shows some talent for landscape photography, and sure enough made his mark later on shooting several indie classics for trailblazing director Joan Micklin Silver.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed