Page 1 of 1
Alexandra
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 1:29 pm
by jj
.
"...seems to be one of the Pornochic series but is not advertised as such...".
That's because it isn't.
I'm sure it was shot in conjunction with the series but it seems to be a stand-
alone release. I haven't so far managed to identify any of the scenes as coming
from elsewhere- although of course I'd appreciate any contribution/refutation.
Re: Alexandra
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:31 pm
by Len801
The video box cover artwork is similar to the Pornochic series.
What the actual pedigree is I really don't know. Someone should ask VMD.
In any event, the running length is 115 minutes and released most likely around 2003.
Re: Alexandra
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:55 pm
by jj
It seems most odd that they didn't just release it as one of the P. volumes.
Perhaps it's some Cartesian protest against regimentation : -)
Re: Alexandra
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:01 pm
by Len801
If I were a betting man, I would say that ALEXANDRA is indeed one of the Pornochicc movies.
If it quacks and walks like a duck, most likely it is a duck!
Bodilis has directed over a dozen of the Pornochic movies released between 2003 and 2006.
I don't know in what order ALEXANDRA was released by VMD, but seems to have been released in 2003 along with other volumes in this series.
The fact that it is the same director involved, the similar/identical artwork, the movie title (referring to a female performer name) certainly points in that direction. I wish I could do a more detailed analys to nail this down, but having not seen any of the titles in this series leaves me at a disadantage to say anything more.
Re: Alexandra
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 4:22 pm
by jj
Well, we're presently on
number 19 [18 on iafd] and there's no room to
interpolate a new volume, unless we take a leaf from JK Rowling and dub this
one "Pornochic 9?".
Re: Alexandra
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:28 am
by Len801
Well, they don't necessarily have to have a specific number assigned to be part of a series. It happens, it's not a rare occurrence.
I don't know in what order this particular movie was released with respect to the others. But I am fairly convinced this title is part of that series.
Re: Alexandra
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:19 pm
by jj
I agree it
ought to have been labelled as part of that series but [
pace iafd] it
wasn't.
This makes me confused and annoyed; I find that, with increasing age, I tend to
find lots of things confusing and/or annoying*, and I don't like it [img]
http://www.egafd.com/forum/smileys/oldie.gif[/img]
I used to be an Angry Young man; now I seem to be morphing into an Angry Old
Man [img]
http://www.egafd.com/forum/smileys/rant.gif[/img]
*
Per exemplum: mindless adulation of talentless 'popstars' and overrated
footballers; Reality TV; the Internet; adverts where you can't fathom what it is
they're actually advertising; recalcitrant electronic equipment; the appalling English
of continuity-announcers; 'txtspk' used in everyday communication; the appalling
English of most 'journalists'; the young; the appalling English of most English
people [and especially that of the young].
There are- as you may have guessed- other things, which space and my typing-fingers
preclude....