As it turns out, the makers of the legendary "Flesh Gordon" were also the makers of the first-ever theatrical hardcore feature. What's fascinating is that the genre has really not fundamentally progressed one inch past what they do here. Oh, some of the details may have changed, but we still get about fifteen seconds of plot every ten minutes, interspersed with the predictable carnal content. Which isn't bad, actually, and the plot stuff is better: charmingly forthright and silly. Admittedly the dominant image I'm carrying around afterward is of the unremitting full-screen vaginal closeups - probably because I saw it in a theatre; web porn has nothing on this scale of spectacle, not to mention the social component of watching it with a roomful of skeptical youngish middle-class types. (And let's not forget the peppy harmonica that accompanies these images on the soundtrack!) It's not particularly cool that the brief incest scene is played for titillation before it rotates into light irony. But for the most part this story of people of various ages and genders seeking out their various sexual relations strikes me as a positive statement, in its severely limited way. It looks like they're having a lot of fun!
5 Reviews
The least impacting and memorable pioneer in any field I have yet to come across
StevePulaski13 July 2015
Mona the Virgin Nymph was the first pornographic film to receive a full theatrical in America in 1970. While it may not have earned the recognition and merited the cult impact of Debbie Does Dallas and Deep Throat, Mona paved the way for a great deal of contemporaries, many of which, admittedly, of better quality, and was a landmark film in defeating America's tight grip on pornographic and "obscene" content.
Had it not been for this tidbit of information, I'd say Mona the Virgin Nymph wouldn't be remembered for much else other than an earlier, shoddy American pornographic film. The film is a sloppy, third-rate production all around, with a bare bones plot and scuzzy sex scenes that can barely pass for entertainment, let alone being watchable. The pale plot revolves around Mona (Fifi Watson), a young woman who is about to marry her finacee Jim (Orrin North), but makes the promise to her mother (Judy Angel) that she will not engage in sexual intercourse until they are married. Mona's mother didn't have sex until she married Mona's now late father, so she expects the same good will of her daughter. This makes Jim antsy, desperately wanting to make love with his beautiful fiancée. However, Mona isn't totally inexperienced sexually, for she has a fascination and a passion for fellatios. She winds up frequenting alleys, movie theaters, and a wide variety of places to perform blowjobs on random men, keeping this a secret from her fiancée and mother.
Mona the Virgin Nymph's basic plot doesn't allow for the guilty arousal and deep-rooted ideas of Taboo to play out, the wit of Deep Throat that wound up being just as memorable as the sex scenes, nor does it have the same kind of arousing sex scenes as Debbie Does Dallas. For being a pioneer, Mona's simplicity doesn't allow for much of a cultural impact, or even an impact on its field, because of how generic everything about it is. It's low-grade videography give the film a dreary sepia toned hue, and the sex scenes are more often than not shot with extreme close-ups, with little concern for space or atmosphere.
Then there's the fact that the sex scenes occur with five minutes, give or take, between each one. During this downtime, we get little sense of the characters and aren't given much of anything other than cheap dialog to sneer at. Films of The Golden Age of Porn proved that sex can have plots, both fairly simple and subversive, yet still succeed in being arousing motion pictures. Mona, however, gets so simple that it winds up being forgettable almost instantaneously after it concludes. It has to be the least impacting pioneer in any field that I have yet to come across.
Starring: Fifi Watson, Judy Angel, and Orrin North. Directed by: Michael Benveniste and Howard Ziehm.
Had it not been for this tidbit of information, I'd say Mona the Virgin Nymph wouldn't be remembered for much else other than an earlier, shoddy American pornographic film. The film is a sloppy, third-rate production all around, with a bare bones plot and scuzzy sex scenes that can barely pass for entertainment, let alone being watchable. The pale plot revolves around Mona (Fifi Watson), a young woman who is about to marry her finacee Jim (Orrin North), but makes the promise to her mother (Judy Angel) that she will not engage in sexual intercourse until they are married. Mona's mother didn't have sex until she married Mona's now late father, so she expects the same good will of her daughter. This makes Jim antsy, desperately wanting to make love with his beautiful fiancée. However, Mona isn't totally inexperienced sexually, for she has a fascination and a passion for fellatios. She winds up frequenting alleys, movie theaters, and a wide variety of places to perform blowjobs on random men, keeping this a secret from her fiancée and mother.
Mona the Virgin Nymph's basic plot doesn't allow for the guilty arousal and deep-rooted ideas of Taboo to play out, the wit of Deep Throat that wound up being just as memorable as the sex scenes, nor does it have the same kind of arousing sex scenes as Debbie Does Dallas. For being a pioneer, Mona's simplicity doesn't allow for much of a cultural impact, or even an impact on its field, because of how generic everything about it is. It's low-grade videography give the film a dreary sepia toned hue, and the sex scenes are more often than not shot with extreme close-ups, with little concern for space or atmosphere.
Then there's the fact that the sex scenes occur with five minutes, give or take, between each one. During this downtime, we get little sense of the characters and aren't given much of anything other than cheap dialog to sneer at. Films of The Golden Age of Porn proved that sex can have plots, both fairly simple and subversive, yet still succeed in being arousing motion pictures. Mona, however, gets so simple that it winds up being forgettable almost instantaneously after it concludes. It has to be the least impacting pioneer in any field that I have yet to come across.
Starring: Fifi Watson, Judy Angel, and Orrin North. Directed by: Michael Benveniste and Howard Ziehm.
Just as silly as a modern porn flick in my opinion.
Boba_Fett113815 September 2012
Thing that I like- and older porn flicks are known for, is that they are made with some class and at least some effort got put into its originality. Besides, they often feature a real story and got put together by people with an obvious passion and interest for film-making. This often resulted in some great and classic genre movies, which mostly came from the '70's and '80's. Movies with a good look to them and some true originality. None of that really goes for this movie though.
This movie is also often regarded as part of the whole porno chic movement but quite frankly I don't see why. It's just as silly and bad in its buildup as a modern porn flick for instance and most certainly doesn't have a good or professional look to it.
It has an incredible cheap look and at times the sound just simply cuts off. Really not all that pleasant to watch. It still uses some good extreme closeups though, which I thought was a nice touch.
You could say that it attempts to have a story in it but it's just one of those stories that serves as an excuses to have sex scenes rapidly following up on each other. It still feels very random though, even while it's all being connected through its story. Of course nothing convincing or realistic about this movie but hey, that most of the time isn't anything people are looking for in an adult movie anyway.
The sex scenes themselves really aren't anything special neither though, in my opinion. Even though this definitely is a hardcore flick, it's still nothing all that graphic really. It just isn't filmed all that well and at times you can't really tell what's happening. You could say that the movie only truly gets graphic with its extreme closeups but there are only just a handful of moments in this movie.
It's of course also incredibly painful to see people trying to act in this. It's all truly bad and it's not hard to see why these people were in the adult business, as opposed to being in the 'true' movie business.
Most definitely not the best or most fun the genre has to offer, not even if you're into this, classic, old fashioned, genre stuff.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
This movie is also often regarded as part of the whole porno chic movement but quite frankly I don't see why. It's just as silly and bad in its buildup as a modern porn flick for instance and most certainly doesn't have a good or professional look to it.
It has an incredible cheap look and at times the sound just simply cuts off. Really not all that pleasant to watch. It still uses some good extreme closeups though, which I thought was a nice touch.
You could say that it attempts to have a story in it but it's just one of those stories that serves as an excuses to have sex scenes rapidly following up on each other. It still feels very random though, even while it's all being connected through its story. Of course nothing convincing or realistic about this movie but hey, that most of the time isn't anything people are looking for in an adult movie anyway.
The sex scenes themselves really aren't anything special neither though, in my opinion. Even though this definitely is a hardcore flick, it's still nothing all that graphic really. It just isn't filmed all that well and at times you can't really tell what's happening. You could say that the movie only truly gets graphic with its extreme closeups but there are only just a handful of moments in this movie.
It's of course also incredibly painful to see people trying to act in this. It's all truly bad and it's not hard to see why these people were in the adult business, as opposed to being in the 'true' movie business.
Most definitely not the best or most fun the genre has to offer, not even if you're into this, classic, old fashioned, genre stuff.
4/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Back to Basics
Nodriesrespect27 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is the original porno classic, the one that helped shape explicit commercial erotica into what you find on adult video store shelves today. No, I'm not talking about DEEP THROAT, even though that of course will forever remain the breakthrough film, the one that dragged viewers out of the closet and for a brief moment in time made their cinema-going habits fashionable, chic even. The treat I've lined up for all you boys and girls was made nearly a full two years prior to THROAT and was simply called MONA, with the subtitle THE VIRGIN NYMPH added in some venues and on select reissues for unneeded pizazz. It came hot on the trail of a long line of semi-documentaries and pseudo-informative "white coaters" yet dispensed with the hypocrisy of both these embryonic forms of adult entertainment by presenting its non-simulated delights as part of a plausible plot and adhering to a traditional cinematic narrative structure. From that moment on, in a way, porn was born.
The creative brain behind MONA was a loud-mouthed L.A. denizen named "Bill Osco" a/k/a Michael Benveniste who planned on revolutionizing pornography by mainstreaming it. He faded into obscurity after his early '70s burst of creativity - and committed suicide halfway through the decade - that left us with a triumvirate of classic carnality. In addition to MONA, he also made the initially well-received though now virtually forgotten HARLOT and the all time cult favorite FLESH GORDON which was shot as a hardcore porn film but eventually released in a watered-down R-rated version only. As a footnote, Benveniste was also responsible for Hollywood BLUE, a compilation of stags and loops rapidly assembled to cash in on the success of Alex De Renzy's superior A HISTORY OF THE BLUE MOVIE. The longevity he envisaged was ultimately bestowed on his friend and regular cinematographer Howard Ziehm who, as a director, made his fame with some of the finest "loop carriers" ever made like HONEYPIE, SWEET CAKES and NAUGHTY NETWORK.
When viewed three and a half decades after its inauguration, MONA might not seem like much of a groundbreaking achievement to the uninitiated. After all, both form and content have served as a virtual blueprint for pornographic cinema ever since. Back in 1970 however, it was the first of its kind, with very little to compare it to except soft-core movies perhaps, which it far surpassed by making the entire film about sex, wasting no time on melodramatic complications or burlesque humor, either of which would continue to serve as an occasional excuse for porn. On the other hand, it never neglects the finer points of film-making with intricate lighting and professional photography (superior to that of THROAT which can't help but look slapdash by comparison) and passable acting in the parts that require any.
Frieda "Fifi" Watson heads the cast as the titular Mona, a virgin who plans to stay that way until marriage to her boyfriend. Fortunately for said boyfriend, and for frustrated viewers, she has a taste for oral sex due to a childhood experience involving her father (whose face is never shown) ! Such elements only go to distinguish this early adult film as a more subversive creature than the current incarnation, a close relation to '60s underground cinema in fact. Mona performs fellatio on various men, be it in an alley or a movie theater, and even shares a lesbian liaison with hooker Susan Stewart. Meanwhile, the girl's seemingly puritan mother (played by the most recognizable actress in the movie, Judy Angel, star of mostly forgotten early f*ck fare with titles like SMASH OR HOW TO GET HUNG and MISSUS LITTLE'S DUDE RANCH) dresses up in see-through lingerie and tries to have her wicked way with her daughter's fiancé who feels rightfully neglected now that Mona's mouthing off all over town. Thoughts of vengeance creep into his fevered mind, a feat accomplished with the help of all those she has serviced throughout the movie.
MONA was one of the first full length pornographic films to offer a recognizable three act dramatic structure that progresses logically within its own confines. Its trailblazing importance in this respect simply cannot be overstated. To paraphrase Mr. Spock, it boldly went where no film had gone before. It did so with a technical prowess that few other porno features at the time could even begin to equal. And on top of that, it brought audiences what was undoubtedly the hottest, most genuinely arousing sex they had seen on the big screen until then. Watson's oral expertise may not approach the sideshow quality of Linda Lovelace's exploits but remains extremely erotic all the same and Angel almost steals the show as the prude with the dirty mind even though her masturbation sequence, shot in extreme close-up, may strike some viewers as tasteless, especially as we're talking about a woman who seems to be in the early stages of middle age.
The creative brain behind MONA was a loud-mouthed L.A. denizen named "Bill Osco" a/k/a Michael Benveniste who planned on revolutionizing pornography by mainstreaming it. He faded into obscurity after his early '70s burst of creativity - and committed suicide halfway through the decade - that left us with a triumvirate of classic carnality. In addition to MONA, he also made the initially well-received though now virtually forgotten HARLOT and the all time cult favorite FLESH GORDON which was shot as a hardcore porn film but eventually released in a watered-down R-rated version only. As a footnote, Benveniste was also responsible for Hollywood BLUE, a compilation of stags and loops rapidly assembled to cash in on the success of Alex De Renzy's superior A HISTORY OF THE BLUE MOVIE. The longevity he envisaged was ultimately bestowed on his friend and regular cinematographer Howard Ziehm who, as a director, made his fame with some of the finest "loop carriers" ever made like HONEYPIE, SWEET CAKES and NAUGHTY NETWORK.
When viewed three and a half decades after its inauguration, MONA might not seem like much of a groundbreaking achievement to the uninitiated. After all, both form and content have served as a virtual blueprint for pornographic cinema ever since. Back in 1970 however, it was the first of its kind, with very little to compare it to except soft-core movies perhaps, which it far surpassed by making the entire film about sex, wasting no time on melodramatic complications or burlesque humor, either of which would continue to serve as an occasional excuse for porn. On the other hand, it never neglects the finer points of film-making with intricate lighting and professional photography (superior to that of THROAT which can't help but look slapdash by comparison) and passable acting in the parts that require any.
Frieda "Fifi" Watson heads the cast as the titular Mona, a virgin who plans to stay that way until marriage to her boyfriend. Fortunately for said boyfriend, and for frustrated viewers, she has a taste for oral sex due to a childhood experience involving her father (whose face is never shown) ! Such elements only go to distinguish this early adult film as a more subversive creature than the current incarnation, a close relation to '60s underground cinema in fact. Mona performs fellatio on various men, be it in an alley or a movie theater, and even shares a lesbian liaison with hooker Susan Stewart. Meanwhile, the girl's seemingly puritan mother (played by the most recognizable actress in the movie, Judy Angel, star of mostly forgotten early f*ck fare with titles like SMASH OR HOW TO GET HUNG and MISSUS LITTLE'S DUDE RANCH) dresses up in see-through lingerie and tries to have her wicked way with her daughter's fiancé who feels rightfully neglected now that Mona's mouthing off all over town. Thoughts of vengeance creep into his fevered mind, a feat accomplished with the help of all those she has serviced throughout the movie.
MONA was one of the first full length pornographic films to offer a recognizable three act dramatic structure that progresses logically within its own confines. Its trailblazing importance in this respect simply cannot be overstated. To paraphrase Mr. Spock, it boldly went where no film had gone before. It did so with a technical prowess that few other porno features at the time could even begin to equal. And on top of that, it brought audiences what was undoubtedly the hottest, most genuinely arousing sex they had seen on the big screen until then. Watson's oral expertise may not approach the sideshow quality of Linda Lovelace's exploits but remains extremely erotic all the same and Angel almost steals the show as the prude with the dirty mind even though her masturbation sequence, shot in extreme close-up, may strike some viewers as tasteless, especially as we're talking about a woman who seems to be in the early stages of middle age.
History-Making But Forgotten Original
spiritof677 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It's really funny reading the reviews that the kids have here. I doubt that many of them, as I was, were actually around/adults when this movie came out.It was a blockbuster, and it pretty much laid the tracks that Deep Throat used to get to the top of US media.
Some complain about production values: I imagine they don't know this film was shot for $5000. Yes, about the cost of two Volkswagens back then. They probably also don't know that the outside shots were all done "wild", which means they picked a place and just did it, traffic/pedestrians/whatever notwithstanding. The scene in the alley shows this.
There is a real story here, and one based on the view of the female star, not the men she encounters. The real shame is that you can't buy a complete version of this film, and you haven't been able to for over twenty years. So it is entirely possible the reviewers here only saw the Something Weird version of it, which lacks at least six major scenes. Gee, I'll bet they maybe didn't know that either. As for complaints about the "monster shots", i.e. the full-screen depictions of the stars' vagina, that was a standard shot in the 70's. But in the 21st Century, the proper contrast for a film like this is totally absent, and the reviews here show that.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews