Family Affairs 2
- Video
- 2021
- 2h 2m
YOUR RATING
Robert Baldwin
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Marley Brinx
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
James Deen
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Aidra Fox
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Lucas Frost
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Seth Gamble
- Non Sex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Remy LaCroix
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Elexis Monroe
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Katie Morgan
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Kristen Scott
- NonSex Role
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Storyline
Did you know
- ConnectionsFeatures Brothers & Sisters (2015)
Featured review
Causing confusion
Sweet Sinner eventually joined the competition with frequent issuance of compilation videos, that money-saving tactic of providing new releases with already-paid for (recycling from the vault) content. This set of four old scenes errs in a couple of ways.
First of all, the title premise is to feature faux incest content of the stepsister, stepfather, etc. Variety. But instead there are scenes here that were originally the ballast of the movies, say a husband and wife having sex or boyfriend/girlfriend action. Sure, the original title may have been "Brothers & Sisters" but the selected scene for reissue has no taboo to it.
Additionally, there are tons of plot and dialogue content revived here, but it is largely irrelevant to the vignette presented -making sense only in context with the full-length original movie. I want to re-watch the original movie, not be treated to a cryptic excerpt merely to watch sex footage once the yapping is over.
In fact, the roster of NonSex performers here outnumbers the credited sex performers. So the geniuses currently running the Sweet Sinner label seem clueless, merely trying to make a few bucks via DVD or VOD purchases of random old material.
Oddest element here is that all the footage, from different sources, was shot in the same "Immoral Proposal" mansion so often used as a glamorous location for porn over the past decade and a half. It emerges as the star of the show, inadvertently for sure.
First of all, the title premise is to feature faux incest content of the stepsister, stepfather, etc. Variety. But instead there are scenes here that were originally the ballast of the movies, say a husband and wife having sex or boyfriend/girlfriend action. Sure, the original title may have been "Brothers & Sisters" but the selected scene for reissue has no taboo to it.
Additionally, there are tons of plot and dialogue content revived here, but it is largely irrelevant to the vignette presented -making sense only in context with the full-length original movie. I want to re-watch the original movie, not be treated to a cryptic excerpt merely to watch sex footage once the yapping is over.
In fact, the roster of NonSex performers here outnumbers the credited sex performers. So the geniuses currently running the Sweet Sinner label seem clueless, merely trying to make a few bucks via DVD or VOD purchases of random old material.
Oddest element here is that all the footage, from different sources, was shot in the same "Immoral Proposal" mansion so often used as a glamorous location for porn over the past decade and a half. It emerges as the star of the show, inadvertently for sure.
helpful•10
- lor_
- Dec 10, 2022
Details
- Runtime2 hours 2 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content