Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

... than this has a lot of Horror in it! Like almost way too much of it. Full frontal and everything. There is no explicit intercourse being shown, but other than that it feels like at least 50% of the movie plays in the nude. A lot of women who may not be able to convince you of their characters motivation, but seem to be able to convince others to obey them (through singing as is suggested and their bare bodies).I wonder if some thought: who needs Viagra, when you can chant and make people horny just like that. Of course Viagra was not a thing back then. But Horror movies were. Not that there is much evidence of that here. I mean it get eerie from time to time, but this puts the Horror mantle on to let you watch a soft-core movie and not feel bad about it. Here's the thing: you can have fun with this, because it's so bad it gets entertaining. You can't be prude (I think I thoroughly established that) and don't expect too much Horror out of it ... Fancy an ... old castle with hot women dying to get into your pants? (on a serious note: the best thing is the location itself, really puts value to the whole thing)

As has been suggested by others, this is rather disappointing. I've enjoyed all the films of Joseph Sarno, that I've seen and I suppose the most attractive common denominator in the US ones is the normalcy. If not in the characters, necessarily then certainly in the way that the sexual activity is shot, there is a certain frisson for the viewer because we believe into the activity. Here with a vampire tale we are already somewhat distanced and the way this is shot (more like a witch's tale than vampire one) this has to be fantasy. So, vigorous, though the sex is and effective though it is, the one thing it lacks is believability. There are some decent scenes and much nudity but this is no great shakes as a vampire movie - we don't even get a bloody bite till over an hour in - instead there are the constant comings and goings of the coven, sorry vampire lair, and just occasional scenes of visceral action.

Erotic cinema of the 1970's was tame compared to the triple X romps of today, which is good. Because there is a good story around the naked rituals and sex scenes. Of course, I wish that they had some vampire effects which they had at the time period and the sex did get in the way of the story a little. Plus some of the accents were hard to understand at time periods, but it's worth watching the unedited version then the edited up version which is titled THE DEVIL'S PLAYTHING. But if you don't care for allot of naked women dancing and having sex, then this isn't the movie for you. However, I did enjoy it and I give it...7 STARS.

Joe Sarno has never quite achieved the respect or notoriety of other sex/genre directors like Jess Franco or Russ Meyer largely because he was a very workman-like director without a really distinctive style of his own. However, unlike Franco, who only made movies in Europe, or Meyer, who only made movies in America, Sarno was able to go back and forth across the Atlantic making low-budget classics like "Sin in the Suburbs" in the US and "Inga" and "Young Playthings" in Europe. Like Franco and Meyer, he definitely had an eye for pretty girls. In America he helped discover several bra popping ingénues like Uschi Digart, Marsha Jordan, and Audrey Landers while in Sweden he discovered some truly impressive beauties like Marie Lillejahl, Christine Lindberg, and the star of this picture, Maria Forse.Forse, the only Swede in an otherwise German cast, plays a schoolgirl who is lured with her friend to a remote castle as part of some plot by a coven of witches/vampires to snare a brother and sister in order that they can resurrect the siblings' ancestor, a long dead witch (or something like that). Her friend becomes a vampire while she falls in love with the brother. Much nudity, ritualistic dancing, and softcore groping ensues. The plot really isn't that important though--this is another European film where the producers apparently had access to an old castle and some actresses willing to disrobe so they decided to make a movie. The results kind of resemble a Jean Rollins film like "Requiem for a Vampire" but less arty, or a Renato Polselli like "The Reincarnation of Isabel" but less insane. It's more a sex film than a horror film, but interestingly, judging from some of the footage in the DVD supplements, Retroseduction did not include the strongest possible cut sex-wise. This is probably just as well as this barely qualifies as horror film as it is. If you want to see a pure Sarno sex film I'd recommend either the arty but barely legal (if that) Swedish film "Inga" or the godawful American bored housewife romp "Pleasures of Woman" (which Retroseduction also recently released on DVD-- along with a shot-by-shot "remake" with their in-house silicone cyborg girls just in case you want to watch it twice). Pick your poison.Next to the very hard-to-find "Young Playthings", this is probably Sarno's best film though--for whatever that's worth