ok its my personal taste but i much more prefer salieri movies.
private and hustler is ok, beautiful girls, beautiful locations,
vaginal, anal, doublepenetration, cumshot....
for me its always the same, no story behind it, but
the girls are really pretty like yasmyne fitzgerald, sophie evans, julia taylor, julie silver (she also did a rapemovie)
In salieri movies there often happens a lot of unusual things, i like the light there but I also liked the candlelight scene in Stanley kubricks
"barry lyndon"
As if Salieri films do not have the same look and feel. Fumetto...gimme a break!!!!
They all look the same. A woman is usually forced into sex. Sex scene dimly lit on a bed, couch, etc: handjob, bj, sex in 2-3 positions, brief anal, cum shot and it's over in about 4 minutes. Sex scenes shot by Red Light, Anabolic, Zero Tolerance, 3rd Degree, last 20-30 minutes are well lit and there is more varied action. So if I pick up a Red Light video with a favorite actress, I know the scene will be a long one and I will enjoy it. With Salieri, it will be over in an average of 4 minutes. Not enough to wet my appetite.
Sure, well-known actresses have worked for Salieri, but there are probably a number of obvious reasons for that. Actresses believe they have a better chance of widening their popularity by starring in his films, and perhaps he pays better. His films receive a wider release in Italy and other European countries (France, Germany, etc), so yes most actresses look for that opportunity (why do you think actresses in the US want to work for Vivid and become the next Jenna Jameson??). But that does not necessarily mean Salieri's films are better. As for their violent content, I really cannot comprehend your fascination in that. Violence and misteatment of women in real life and in porn have no justification. In porn, all sex is fantasy, sex happens for no dramatic reason. There is little or no built-up, it just happens, everybody is always ready to screw. Even ugly men like Ron Jeremy, Max Hardcore, Ed Powers, Brian Surewood (just to mention a few) get to screw incredible looking young women. In real life it would never happen (as if they don't know that).
I saw an interview with Ron about why he remains in porn, and all he could manage was that it is easier to be called an active porn star than an "ex"-porn star. See if that makes sense to you.
With regards to Kubrick's BARRY LYNDON (1975), it was one of the first to use natural light in interior scenes, and I believe Kodak had developed at that time a special fast film to capture candle-lit scenes with satisfactory results. But are you saying that Salieri is trying emulate Kubrick???? Sex is sex, and I don't have to strain my eyes to see what is going on. It was bad enough until the early 1990's, when a couple was screwing on the screen, you couldn't see much of what was going on, with the thick bush actresses were sporting and the horrible camera angles (they were using bulky 16mm cameras). Now the scenes are much brightly lit and women a(and men) are shaved. What is the point of shooting a sex scene in the dark?? To make an artistic statement? And what of the violence? To try to justify that it happens in real life, and so porn movies have to imitate "real events"?
