Category Archives: Movies

movie reviews

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 14, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

1 Comment

Blackenstein (1973)

blackenstein_1973

ImageImageImage

Please realize that my giving Blackenstein (a.k.a. Black Frankenstein) a grade of three out of four iron crosses is more of a reflection of my horrible taste in films, than of the film’s actual quality. The customary complaints of budgetary restraints, poor acting, bad dialogue, plot holes, unexplained character motivation and technical issues don’t even begin to describe how bad this movie is.  But one thing that really surprised me was how much gore it had!  I thought it was going to be tame like Blacula, which is a PG rated American International release, but, oh no!  “The monster” goes around ripping out organs and pulling off limbs, and there is some full frontal nudity.  So the film definitely earned its R rating.

The plot begins when a cute little doctor/nurse/whatever named Winnifred (Ivory Stone) begins assisting Dr. Stein (John Hart) in his makeshift mad scientist lab, full of cheap props, Tesla coils and things that create lightning for no reason.  Yet this is supposed to be his “state of the art” medical facility where he uses “experimental” techniques to help people.  Mind you, he IS a good guy and not a mad scientist; he apparently is actually helping his two patients, a 90 year old woman who wants to maintain a youthful appearance and a Russian amputee to whom he attached new limbs.

Anyway Winnifred tells him about her lover/fiance (we talked through that part so I didn’t get what the official title was), Eddie (Joe De Sue), who lost his arms and legs in Vietnam.  Stein agrees to try an experimental procedure to give him new limbs from recently deceased corpses.  Everything would have gone according to plan if not for Stein’s other assistant, Malcomb (Roosevelt Jackson), who, out of desire and jealousy, screwed with the DNA formula and, as a result, turned Eddie into a monster that goes around killing people.

Uh, okay so, plot holes?  They keep Eddie locked up, I think?  Yet he manages to make nightly rendezvous where he finds random victims (and one not so random bigoted male nurse!).  They are all unmotivated and completely unnatural.  His victims incude a middle aged couple and their dog, the girl who left her date’s presence after he was too forward with her, the couple outside the nightclub and so on and so forth.

Oh yeah!  I should mention that there is a pointless nightclub scene.  You could argue that director William Levey was establishing locale but, for some reason we see a comedian Andy C perform minutes of his routine and a nightclub singer Carmello di Milo sing a number or two.  These are entertaining scenes for what they are, but they disrupt the flow of the film.  Not that this film has much flow, but hey!

Also, I wasn’t going to bitch about this too about continuity, but where the hell did he get that suit from?  First he’s in his prison – right, the doctor and nurse, for some reason keep their patient in a prison like cage – where he emerges wearing a suit!  A fucking suit!  I suppose they’re trying to keep with the Karloff’s monster but you know, they still didn’t answer where he got a suit from.  Oh and bullets don’t harm “the monster” but really sharp k-9s do, hint, hint….

The acting is mostly crap although there wasn’t much to work with.  John Hart and Ivory Stone do okay at their on dimensional parts but Roosevelt Jackson is hilariously bad!  His character stares and ogles his love interest with no subtlety at all!  The movie tries to show that he has romantic feelings for Winnifred, but he stares at her like a rapist, and I don’t think that was intentional.  Okay, later he does try to rape her, but I don’t think the director was employing the subtle technique of foreshadow.  In fact I’d say I don’t think he was thinking anything when he made Blackenstein aside from “yerp, gotta kill people and uh, have the monster walk and stuff and like, uhh…”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 11, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

Scream Bloody Murder (1973)

ImageImage

ImageImageImageImage

I couldn’t decide which was the more lurid poster so I went with both.  I’d been looking forward to seeing Scream Bloody Murder (also known as Matthew, Claw of Terror and The Captive Female) for a while.  I had seen the trailer a number of times and boy did it look good!  Of course by good I mean, completely outrageous and devoid of anything resembling good taste.  And, to be honest, I’m a little surprised by the IMDB user comments, which claim that the movie was, among other things, boring.  It certainly wasn’t that!  I was torn though.

This may sound like a pretty lofty claim but during the movie, I kept thinking, “hey, there’s more to this than just a gross-out fest!”  Filmmaker Marc B. Ray probably would disagree but in making the female character likable and smart, Scream Bloody Murder almost felt like a strong woman film at times.  Or maybe I’m full of crap considering she was tied up quite often.  It just seemed that, unlike a lot of similar movies, you were legitimately on her side in her struggle as opposed to delighting in watching mindless chaos and violence.

First of all the pacing was a little strange.  I’ve seen the trailer for The Captive Female, so I was under the impression that the movie focused almost entirely on the two characters – the villain Matthew (Fred Holbert) and the heroine Vera (Leigh Mitchell) – in one of those tasteless “abducted women” exploitation films.  Maybe I had The Sinful Dwarf in mind.  I don’t know for sure.

The point I’m making is that Scream Bloody Murder is like two films in one.  The first half is pretty much just a slasher movie while the second is the disturbing dominance/submission thriller that the trailer was advertising.  Basically, what happens is that a little kid Matthew runs over his dad with a tractor, then loses his own hand to said tractor and is sent to the looney bin all during the credit sequence.  When the movie actually begins, he’s 19 years old and has a hook in place of his hand; I’m also positive that they had Norman Bates in mind for the character.  It’s a wonder how this character managed to feign sanity for so long considering how he immediately goes on a killing rampage starting with his mom and her new husband.

This is where it gets really crazy; he just kills tons of people on his trek from his hillbilly farm to L.A.  In the process he pictures every woman who is with a man as his mother.  The movie shows us what he sees before he kills people; it looks like a bad acid trip in which the screen gets really distorted and color and the women turn into hideous monsters.  So he kills them and the men they are with.

The tone and pace change when Matthew meets adorable, sassy, redheaded prostitute Vera.  I’m actually surprised people said the acting was bad.  I think she played the part with class and her role as the hooker wasn’t exploitative.  I suppose you could argue that Ray didn’t need to make her a prostitute in the first place.  But then, Matthew wouldn’t be able to complain about “all those men touching you.”

I feel like I’m giving away too much plot here but let’s just say to get Vera in the house – any house – he had to, ahem, get rid of its occupants; “sorry m’am but I’m going to need the house.”  Then the fun really starts!  Like I said the Vera character is intelligent, quick witted and likeable so the movie actually seemed to be about her struggle to free herself.  Furthermore, unlike a lot of these exploitation films, the villain doesn’t rape the victim or drug and sell her into white slavery.  Matthew’s intentions of taking Vera away from the prostitute lifestyle are essentially good, if not misguided.  But ultimately it’s Vera’s choice what she does with her life.  She even uses sex as a weapon against her captor.   Do you see where I’m going with this?  It seems Ray was trying to be a little more ambitious than your typical exploitation director.  On the other hand the Vera character was still tied up in a lot of scenes.

Bottom line is I really liked this movie and don’t understand why it gets a bad rep.  Let me rephrase that.  I don’t understand why people into this type of crap knock the movie so much.  The kill scenes were pretty predictable but then the plot soon had some twists and turns I wasn’t expecting.

But in case you really want to make sure it’s worth 4/4 iron crosses, here it is in its entirety!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 10, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

I Eat Your Skin (1964)

Image

ImageImageImage

I am pretty sick of zombie movies but that’s because the only ones anyone ever makes are the stereotypical ones with hordes of flesh eating, walking dead who infect others by biting them and can be killed by a blow to the head.  But I wonder why it’s been such a long time since anybody has ever explored the classic voodoo zombies of the pre-Night of the Living Dead era?

Before Night of the Living Dead came out zombies were controlled by a voodoo master or some other similar force and just did the master’s bidding.  They pretty much acted like brain dead henchmen who would just as easily chop someone up with a machete as carry a bale of hay.  This topic fascinates me yet everyone just wants to watch crap like The Walking Dead.  And don’t tell me to see it.  I don’t have very much interest.  I saw the pilot and thought it was pretty standard stuff.  Maybe I’ll read the comic since I hear that’s all right.

Now then, one thing that boggled my mind about I Eat Your Skin is that there was no skin being eaten.  I suppose you could argue that the formula the doctor used ate people’s skin away but that’s a pretty ambitious reference to the title, I think.  More than likely it just sounded cool, especially on a double feature with I Drink Your Blood, which I have yet to see.

I Eat Your Skin is not a perfect movie but had enough of what I wanted to see that it worked for me.  The plot involves a womanizing writer named Tom Harris who is played by William Joyce who reminds me of a poor man’s Robert Ryan.  He, his publisher and his publisher’s wife take a sojourn to the Central American island called… Voodoo Island in hopes of inspiring Harris by surrounding him with voodoo culture.  The only thing Harris does is chase after Coral Fairchild (Betty Hyatt Linton) the daughter of the scientist Duncan Faichild (Dan Stapleton).  His conquests are then, often interrupted by the strange looking, bug-eyed, corpse like zombies, who attack people at random.

The acting is all hammy and hack.  The dialog is dubbed, making characters sound as if they are providing voice overs when they are actually just speaking.  There are attempts at comic relief which are horrible; often involving the publisher’s busty (their words, not mine!) wife who is incredibly annoying!  And the dialog is awful; unfunny one liners, corny fake insults, cheesy come-ons, etc.  Yet, I enjoyed it!  Writer/producer/director Del Tenney (known for such classics as The Curse of the Living Corpse and The Horror of Party Beach) does his best to entertain on a miniscule budget.  The movie is surprisingly violent for something that came out in 1964.  It’s not H.G. Lewis violent, mind you.  But there is a decapitation by machete, stabbings of various kinds, a torch to the face and slowly rotting skin.  But probably the best and most original event was when a zombie holding a box of explosives walks directly into the propeller of a helicopter causing it to explode.

Also the set pieces were neat looking.  I love this voodoo stuff so to me, temples with various masks and tropical jungle environments are all a plus.  I was disappointed that movie was in black and white.  Typically I don’t care about that however the movie should have been in color since it takes place in a tropical environment.  I really wanted to see the lush green of the trees and the multicolor masks and costumes that the natives used during the extensive voodoo ceremonies.  Oh well.  I also have issue with how the cheap, Alpha Video DVD release I watched it on, was formatted to the 1:33 ratio as opposed to being in widescreen.  It actually cut off parts of the credits.  Now how hard is it to release something in its correct aspect ratio even if you are a budget DVD company?

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 6, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

3 Comments

Black Shampoo (1976)

Image

ImageImageImage

We must live in a more repressed time than the one in which Black Shampoo was made.  It must have been common practice to bang some trashy middle aged woman – reverse cowgirl style – while her children watch from within their swimming pool.  Also the two daughters are naked after having stripped for and mounted the movie’s main character before their mother shooed them off so she could have him for herself.

Black Shampoo – from director Greydon Clark, who would later be responsible for such classics as Satan’s Cheerleaders and Skinheads: The Second Coming of Hate – is not your typical blaxploitation film.  I mean, it has the genre’s main elements; gratuitous sex and violence, a bad-ass leading character who casually bangs a lot of different women, mustachioed thugs who cause needless violence to get what they want and a love interest that develops over the course of a montage.  However, it’s those lapses in good taste – not that this genre really has much – and surreal situations that made me *almost* give Black Shampoo my first four out of four (don’t ask why my album reviews are out of five and movies out of four, just don’t).

First of all, the movie’s “bad ass” main character Mr. Jonathan (John Daniels) operates a hair salon where he meets the “special needs” of the female clientele.  In fact the opening credit sequence has him shampooing some woman’s hair before she blows him and says something like, “wow, it’s so big!” or something like that.  Mr. Jonathan’s male assistants are two flamboyant gay guys; the white one is slightly wimpier than the black one.  No, it’s not politically correct!  Fuck that!  Yes, the portrayal of the two gay characters is purely based on stereotype.  I don’t know if the actors are actually gay but they don’t seem to be faking those feminine poses.

The loose plot is revealed when three thugs visit the salon and threaten Brenda (Tanya Boyd), the receptionist.  Mr. Jonathan goes into action.  That’s pretty much it.  The sex scenes don’t even come close to erotic.  Don’t get me wrong; the women have good figures, especially Tanya Boyd.  But the act is either scored by hilariously bad 70s soft jams, overacted (OHHH, OHHHH, OH MY GOD) or just plain gross – I did not need to see that open-mouth tongue kissing.  Mind you, these things made the movie amusing so I’m counting them as positive.  One sex scene borders on rape and that’s done by the movie’s hero!  But, I’m gonna save the kicker for the next paragraph.

The barbecue chicken cookout scene.  If I was trying to impress you with my incredibly cultured film taste, I’d compare it to a scene in a Fellini film.  But, let’s just say the cookout took place on a ranch, had a naked woman casually walking around, a ballerina who dances for nobody, a partially naked woman who has holes cut out of her shirt so she can show off her huge breasts, over the top, flamboyant queers and Mr. Jonathan wearing a cowboy hat.  The scene is completely unnecessary and exploitative but I suppose that’s the point.  Also ::spoiler:: there is a scene where a thug shoves a hair curler up the ass of one of the gay hairdressers.

The score is also something else.  Aside from the customary “wicka-wicka” funk music, there is a strange moog playing at times and a salon trashing sequence set to looney tunes music.

And while all of this would seem worthwhile, let’s face it.  The lead actor is completely wooden; sure he’s supposed to be “cool” but he almost exudes no emotion at all except when he rapes a woman as a way of coping with being let down by his true love.  Also the only action we see in the first 70 minutes is Mr. Jonathan punching someone in the face and kicking someone in the balls.  In the trailer it looks exciting but it’s surrounded by no other action.  And the climactic chase scene – involving a motorized weapon, which I won’t reveal – seems to go on for too long, as if they were padding for time.

However, I’m still gonna recommend it because of the film’s ridiculously violent payoff at the end!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 3, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

2 Comments

The Explosive Generation (1960)

Image

Image

Do not be duped by the film’s sensationalistic title or advert.  I was really sitting on the fence about The Explosive Generation.  It has everything to hate about message movies; it’s heavy handed, obvious and sentimental.  But, what annoys me most about the film is that the first conclusion – there are two and I’ll spoil both – completely undermines the entire purpose with a HUGE plot hole.

It is only worth watching to see a dapper, charismatic William Shatner in an early role.  He does a great job portraying the understanding, liberal teacher who is up against an antiquated school system which is focused on the “children should be seen and not heard” mentality.

Let me start with the plot.  After an alcohol fueled celebration, a group of kids wakes up with the events of the night before made not quite clear.  During the course of the film, it’s implied that all four main teens had sex – in their respective couples, not an orgy unfortunately.  The film is from 1960 so, when the film insinuates sex, it’s so subtle that I thought the whole “we spent the whole night together” thing meant, “we had sex” and I’ll get to that.

So, the next day, in class, during a “bull session”, the teacher, Mr. Gifford (Shatner) asks what the kids are *really* interested in.  The main girl Janet says, “sex” and expands that she wants to discuss why girls have to put out so guys will like them and why guys have to “get some” in order to be cool.  At first I thought, “hey!  That’s topical AND relevant!  Maybe this movie is going places!”  But OOOH NO!  Then, it all goes to hell…

I forgot how, but word gets out that the teens might have had sex and that, through the discussion Gifford might have encouraged this and then the parents and kids go into a “they might have had sex” tizzy with copious amounts of melodrama.  The question of “what are we going to do now that THIS happened?” is asked a whole bunch of times.  The answer of course is have more sex but I didn’t write this piece of crap.

Then, all of a sudden, the entire plot changes from “oh my god, did they have sex???” to “Mr. Gifford is going to be fired and we need to save his job!”  And for the next 40 or so minutes, the kids use their wit and resources to protest on the behalf of their teacher.  They save his job and send the message that the youth are the future and you need to fight for what you believe in.

But, the thing that annoyed me the most is that it’s also revealed that the kids NEVER EVEN had sex!  So, then why all the secrecy and controversy in the first place?  Why go through all of that if nothing actually happened?  The little “revelation” Janet makes to her mom – complete with “we’re waiting to get married” – leaves a gaping crater in the plot that made the previous 80 minutes a complete waste of time.

The one bright spot is the single father who is a likeable insurance salesman and lets his kid do anything he wants.  He only “gets tough” when other parents get involved and gives his son the car keys back in order to placate his being upset over the teacher.  Furthermore, upon leaving class to talk to the dad, the teens catch him at home “in the act” with some random lady.  Oh youth.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 3, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

The Choppers (1961)

Image

ImageImageImage

Here is the film debut from Arch Hall, Jr., the helium voiced, pug nosed midget, who would not have had a career if his father didn’t produce his films.  At least in The Choppers, Arch Hall Sr. doesn’t hide behind a pseudonym when crediting himself as writer/producer.  But I guess Arch Hall Jr. has become aware of his cult appeal since he blatantly says it on his official website.

The Choppers is a juvenile delinquent film, in which a group of car strippers called – you guessed it – the Choppers drives around in a truck loaded with chicken cages, finds an unoccupied car on the side of the road, and strips it for all its valuable items.  The gang consists of underage criminal masterminds, each with his own technique and goofy nick name.  One guy is the muscles, one is the wise ass, one is the tech guy, one is something else, and one is Arch Hall Jr., who is the lookout of the group, driving around in his little dune buggy, making sure the coast is clear.  They pull one caper after another until their chicken truck leaves behind a feather of evidence (hahhahha!), and the movie ends in a ridiculous shoot-out, sending the message that “kids, crime doesn’t pay.”

Unlike in Wild Guitar, Hall is a brunette, and his hair is gelled to the extreme.  The Choppers is completely silly and unbelievable, yet totally fun. First of all, I can only imagine that car people will get a kick out of it just from looking at the crew dismantle classic vehicles like pros.  Secondly, it’s only 56 minutes long, which, in today’s cinematic world, would disqualify it as a feature length film, so you have no time to get bored.

Of course, there are some problems, like the useless side characters; the old hillbilly intended to add comic relief is just lame. There’s also a side story involving Arch Hall Jr.’s girlfriend or something. It seems her only function is to be eye candy. Then again, you can say that about the other two female characters as well.

Arch Hall Jr. wouldn’t be bad in the juvenile delinquent role considering his, shall we say, unconventional look, but his voice is so damn high! On the other hand, Arch Hall Sr. does a decent enough job as the no-nonsense reporter and film narrator.  The other kids in the gang, though, man… most of them act like teens, but the brawny tough guy in a leather jacket looks like he’s 40, and one of the kids clenches his teeth the entire time as he talks like a 1930s gangster for no particular reason.

I do plan on reading the lengthy bio on the website so if any other interesting tidbits from this or any of his other films – all of which I plan on watching – surface, I’ll most definitely let ya know!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 2, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

1 Comment

Wild Guitar (1962)

Image

ImageImageImage

When I put on Wild Guitar, the first thing I looked for was the credits to say, “Produced by Arch Hall Sr.”  As it turns out, writer/producer Nicholas Merriweather IS the senior Arch Hall!!!  I first saw Arch Hall Jr. performing musical numbers in Eegah!, where, with only a single acoustic guitar, he managed to produce the sound of a full band with backup singers as he sang about some girl named Vicki.

Of course, we all thought, who is this “Vicki”?  Is this some sort of joke?  The girl in Eegah! isn’t named “Vicki”!  Well, friends, the mystery is solved with Wild Guitar!

Armed with a troll-like face and a pompadour from hell, Buddy Eagle (Hall Jr.) heads to Los Angeles from South Dakota on his hog, which is strangely never seen again, and becomes a big time star.  And thanks to his talent and charisma, he does so in less than 15 minutes, before which he meets his sweetheart Vicki (!!!) (Nancy Czar).  And let me tell you; they are a perfect match as she is no beauty herself!

After Eagle makes his TV debut, Michael McCaulley (Arch Hall Sr.) becomes the sleazy, dictatorial manager, forcing poor Buddy Eagle to choose between his gal and playing his old, beat up acoustic guitar.  But Eagle starts to suspect something’s not totally kosher with their deal when McCaulley begins raking in the dough, and Eagle doesn’t.

Wild Guitar is a pretty standard film about a young star rising to fame and all the troubles and tribulations that come with it. But, come on, now.  The fun of watching the movie comes from watching Arch Hall Jr. hem and haw through every line, play hilarious musical numbers, and attempt to be a teen heart throb.

Now, I didn’t live back then, so I can’t say what the ladies’ tastes were, but it’s obvious that Arch Hall Jr. is no Elvis or Frankie Avalon. He’s just a clumsy looking, awkward no talent, who had his dad cast in the film.  I don’t care about such things; I’m all for nepotism in Hollywood in films, especially when it leads to casting your poor son, who, for all I know, might not have even wanted to step 1,000 feet in front of a camera, but hey!

On the other hand, for what it’s worth, Arch Hall Sr. portrays the typical, sleazy, cigar chomping manager from the era with great ease.  There are a few extra characters; a brother of some sort,  three goofy, non-threatening thugs, and my favorite of the bunch, a REALLY creepy looking “strong arm” thug, who is actually really skinny and not strong, named Steak (Cash Flagg)…

Hold it!  That guy, Cash Flagg, is actually Ray Dennis Steckler, who is the film’s director and master auteur behind The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!

Oh and the musical numbers are surprisingly catchy.  They recycle “Vicki” from Eegah!, but the other one, the one he plays on the TV, is actually pretty good!  Didja know Arch Hall Jr. has an entire CD called Wild Guitar, that contains all of his recorded work?  The thrills just never stop!

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 2, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

Leave a comment

The Hot Angel (1958)

Image

ImageImage

I don’t have too much to say about The Hot Angel.  It’s certainly not a biker film and only barely touches the juvenile delinquent category.  At 72 minutes it’s short enough and passable but to be sure it’s very wholesome and not mean spirited.  Some of the lines include “nobody chooses to be a hero” and “if you have your head in the right place and look to the man upstairs” and crap like that.

The plot concerns a Korean war flyer named Chuck (Ed Kemmer) and plans to take a job flying over fields and scoping out uranium – I didn’t quite pay attention to that part.  His buddy that he served with died and that guy’s younger brother Joe (Mason Alan Dinehart) got involved with some local nogoodniks who’s crimes include stealing hubcaps and playing chicken on their hogs.  Chuck convinces Joe that flying is more honorable than riding around committing crimes and this doesn’t fly with the old gang.  But there are also some double dealings as one of the gang members and his dad are double dealing in the uranium biz or something.

Then a bunch of improbable stuff happens involving locking people in a shed and some creepy guy who tries to rape Joe’s main squeeze, blonde bombshell Mandy (Jackie Loughery) and some knives are pulled and some punches are thrown but the main thing in the movie involves flying airplanes into deep canyons and crap.  This review sucks.  It’s my third today.  Sorry.

Oh, you know what!  Let’s talk about iron crosses!  You see, a lot of people are intimidated by them.  They are essentially a neutral symbol.  Bikers use them to look tough.  Flyers use them as medals of honor.  And, yeah, the Germans used them during WWII.  But they’re okay and pretty neat looking.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 1, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

2 Comments

Orgy of the Dead (1965)

ImageImage

ImageImage

Let’s talk about Edward D. Wood Jr. for a second.  He should not be put on a pedestal as the “worst director of all time.”  The people who say that have not seen what I’ve seen.  They have not traversed the beautifully horrendous filmographies of H.G. Lewis, Andy Milligan, Al Adamson, Ted V. Mikels, or Barry Mahon.  There is so much hilariously inept, completely inane garbage available in the world of exploitation, Eurotrash, nudie-cuties, and drive-in sci fi and horror, that to bestow Ed Wood with that honor fails to recognize others for their brilliant lack of talent.

And so we have Orgy of the Dead, which was not directed by Wood, but adapted by him from his novel of the same name.  I had no idea that he was such a prolific writer, and I was rather surprised that he wrote a book called Suburbia Confidential.  I’ve seen the mid-60s stag film called Suburbia Confidential, and the directing credit is given to Stephen C. Apostolof, who also directed Orgy of the Dead and often collaborated with Wood.  However I haven’t been able to figure out if Suburbia Confidential was based on Wood’s book.  Wood’s book is said to have come out in 1967, the year after the movie so I don’t know.

Either way, Orgy of the Dead is a decent enough nudie flick, except that it’s too damn long.  These things should never be longer than 70 minutes, and Orgy of the Dead has a running time of 91 minutes.  The plot is about a husband and wife, who crash their car by a mountain, wake up next to a cemetery, wander in, and observe an after dark ceremony of sorts.

In other words, what they – and we – observe is striptease after striptease after striptease after striptease, while the Emperor (Criswell) and his Vampira wannabe, the Black Goul (Fawn Silver), chew the scenery.  To add to the stupidity, the Mummy, who talks for some reason, and the Wolf Man are the Emperor’s henchmen.  Eventually, the sun comes up and everyone dies, and the man and wife try to tell their story to cops, and they laugh, saying things like “woa, musta had a pretty bad crash” or “hit your head” or something to that effect.

But, is it worth watching?  The women all look fantastic, apparently all pulled from local strip clubs; so they are busty, curvy, and toned.  Set to a soundtrack of old timey, Cabaret music, the girls each do a unique dance – Hawaiian Dance, Skeleton Dance, Streetwalker Dance, Slave Dance, Cat Dance, Fluff Dance, Mexican Dance and Zombie Dance – and, with the exception of the zombie, are all relatively graceful. The Zombie Dance, in spite being naked, evokes no eroticism due to her zombie moves.  And there is one scene where the Mummy and the Wolfman dip a woman into molten gold, which only further accentuates her gorgeous curves.

Other than that, the fake looking graveyard is cool as well.  We were debating if Orgy of the Dead was filmed in an actual graveyard or if a replica was built on a cheap set.  I say the latter only because the ground is completely flat.  But, since unlike in Plan 9 from Outer Space, the actors had enough grace to not bump into the grave stones, they were believable set pieces. But I suppose that is completely irrelevant for this type of movie anyway.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 1, 2013

Posted under

Movies

Comments

2 Comments

The Cycle Savages (1969)

Image

ImageImageImage

The Cycle Savages is the first biker film I’ve watched which starkly portrays the the gang bang initiation that these biker gangs did back then.  And it’s pretty disturbing!

Bill Brame’s film, in no way, attempts to portray the gang of “Hell’s Chosen Few” as misunderstood by society.  They’re just assholes and creeps and involved with a pimp played by Casey Kasem, who is in the movie all of one minute.  The gang is lead by Keeg who is played by Bruce Dern and is, in no way, sympathetic.  Their dirty, humble abode is decorated with spray painted lingo including “Danger”!  The movie is entertaining even if the plot is a complete mess.  Initially the movie is about an artist named Romco (Chris Robinson) – an immigrant from West Germany – who is caught painting a violent incident at a local restaurant.  Keeg and his crew discover the artist’s drawings and then decide to “shut him up” by breaking his hands.

In the meantime Romco holes up with local cutie Lea (Melody Patterson) who plays the good whore.  She’s involved but doesn’t wanna be and, when Romco paints her nude, she gets all hot under the collar and they start developing a romance.  Then, to keep it interesting, the movie never makes the viewer sure if she is in fact on his side or not.

There are some neat little bits here and there.  For instance, writer/director Bill Bramer doesn’t skimp on showing the ugly side of the involvement of women in the movie. One is a particularly out of control brunette – dressed to the nines in trashy biker attire; red tank top, tight black denim, engineer boots, va voooom! – who keeps pawing all over Keeg, who in turn shows his appreciation by telling her how stupid and useless she is.  Other interesting asides include a fight in a local park with someone who is accused of stealing the bike from one of the gang members.  Though I have a feeling it was inserted in the movie to pad for time and to have an extra, useless fighting sequence.

Speaking of fighting, one thing that I enjoyed was that Romco wasn’t a sissy.  He is an artist but he could hold his own.  They also need to check the wood railing in their little trashy, biker abode.

The movie came out in 1969 – after the rating system was in place – so, I don’t know why they didn’t show the nudity or why certain words like “rape” and “acid” are obscured in biker lingo.  Otherwise it’s a fun little, trashy romp full bikers and bitchy broads.  Also, there were iron crosses but no swastikas.

The movie also has a soundtrack attached to it.  The catchy fuzzed out theme that plays throughout was performed by the Cycle-Mates, who play two other songs.  The rest of the soundtrack is divided up between two other bands – Orphan Egg and The Boston Tea Party, both of which are late 60s, lighter weight psychedelic pop-rock groups and each have one album to their name.