Thriller En Grym Film AKA Thriller, a Cruel Picture, They Call Her One Eye

Movie poster n°1.

After hearing all the hype about this film...the latest notorious Eurotrash cult film making the rounds...has to be seen to be believed...sex and violence, sex and violence, etc., I finally got hold of a copy of it and was almost afraid that with all the anticipation I'd just be disappointed. To add to that, the copy I got was of crappy quality as I discovered when I started watching it--the opening credits were so blurry I couldn't read them--and the whole affair started to look like nothing more than the chore necessary to get the idea of finally seeing this film out of my head.

All this apprehension disappeared quickly as I got sucked into this simple yet very engaging story. We all know it's about a chick with one eye who picks up a shotgun and exacts revenge on her abusers, another entry into a sub-genre that needs no introduction, and that's what I expected, just another entry into this sub-genre with maybe enough explicit footage to give it the aforementioned notoriety, which alone does not a good film make. What I didn't expect was the atmosphere, the occasional insight (witness an early semi-rape scene involving rape-by-camera), the genuinely creepy close-ups of leering, panting men and all the other quirks that make this such a neat little flick. There is a lot of experimental sort of storytelling in this movie, as I guess was the style of the time (early seventies), and some of it is neat and some of it is downright annoying. But the overall effect, aided in no small part by the music, and aided also by the main character's inability to speak (had to have influenced Ms. .45, which came later) as well as the fact that I don't speak Swedish and this film is neither dubbed nor subtitled, is one of being underwater in a very polluted river. And that seems perfectly appropriate, since figuratively that's the story of the protagonist's life.

Bang! you're dead fucker!.

The close-up hardcore porn footage is used to better effect than I've ever seen such footage used, as it is supposed to be disturbing and sickening (anyone who thinks about impersonal images like that when they think about real sex, the good kind, has got to be a few beers short of a case). However, it is somewhat over-used. There are some good scenes of drawn-out, methodical drug-administering, shotgun-sawing, martial arts training, etc. that give the film, at times, an edge of realism. This realism is shattered, however, by scenes of cars exploding at the slightest impact and the nails-on-a-chalkboard slow-motion shooting scenes.

However, the entire film was redeemed for me by the last couple of sequences...one scene of her walking, all clad in black with her eyepatch and shotgun, amidst some shacks by a pier was straight out of a very dark western. The whole look of the film, especially the outdoor footage, is stark and desolate. Makes me want to go to Sweden. I was not let down by the last killing...the guy deserved that and more...it's a testament to the sort of infectuous quality of this film and the surprising abilities of porn star Christina Lindberg that I cared that much and even savored what happens to this guy. I've never actually savored the film re-enactment of the torture of a human being before seeing this film. More important than that, though, were the stark landscapes and windy, desolate atmosphere of the whole last sequence. "One-eye"'s cold-as-ice serenity as she sits and waits for her macabre plan to take effect is more satisfying than any of what she's waiting for.

So, as a way of paying homage I'll try to include every detail I could find about the 1974 masterpiece, Thriller, A Cruel Picture.

This is the DVD version from which I am reviewing today.

Tarantino's Elle Driver inspiration from Frigga.

Marketed as the first Swedish film ever banned (not true as a movie called ‘The Gardener’ was in 1912) ‘Thriller: A Cruel Picture’ is just like its title suggests - an extremely cruel rape and revenge thriller that is a provocative cocktail of art house and exploitation filmmaking.

Previously little known even in its native homeland except to hardcore followers of all things grindhouse and drive-in it now has a higher profile since the turn of the century thanks to its most famous fan writer and director Quentin Tarantino. In Interviews promoting the releases of both volumes of ‘Kill Bill’ (2001 & 2002) the filmmaker sung its praises when citing ‘Thriller: A Cruel Picture’ as one of his main inspirations for the duology. The underground Swedish movie was particularly influential on the character of Elle Driver played by Daryl Hannah wearing similar attire to our heroine here - Madeleine aka One Eye played by the gorgeous sexploitation star Christina Lindberg. Hannah wore in both volumes like Lindberg an eye patch as well as a black outfit like hers in ‘Vol. 2’.

Another classic portrait from this swedish exploitation masterpiece.

Fortunately for those who weren't around in those years, or at least for those who want to get a decent copy of the movie, Synapse Films have re-released the movie in wonderful DVD format. The re-release movie it's available in two editions. The uncut edition is the "Red Limited Edition" (yeah, the one I'm reviewing) The edited edition is known as "Vengeance Edition" Some refer to the red edition as the complete version of the film, completely uncensored and the one version that adds the explicit sex scenes (two minutes or some, performed by doubles not Lindberg) so, I would say go for the red edition if you want the real thing, though the explicit sex scenes seem to have been added later to give the movie plot a more consistent meaning when it comes to the revenge issue. 

The uncensored/uncut edition of the film is widely known as  "Thriller, a Cruel Picture" while the censored cut is known as the "They Call Her One Eye" film so in case you do not have it that clear, the film title will tell you which version you're watching.

The version of the film being reviewed here, it's the original uncut Swedish language version (the 107 minute uncut Limited Edition). All the action sequences that were cut from the original theatrical release are restored as well as all the scenes of hardcore pornography that are missing from the 104 minute Vengeance Edition that just maintains the action set-pieces. Both versions are available on region 1 DVD from Synapse Films.

Awesome fan art.

Another promotional poster.

To quote the tagline of ‘Kill Bill: Vol. 1’ the film it inspired ‘Thriller: A Cruel Picture’ will be a slow burn for anyone looking for “A roaring rampage of revenge”. Frigga (or Madeleine depending on which version you're watching) does not start dealing out the pain on the scum until about the hour mark. However, it sure is worth the wait as writer and director Bo Arne Vibenius subjects us to the cruel nature of this movie. Our poor victim/protagonist is violated in all the unspeakable manners described in the synopsis. It just makes it even more satisfying when it finally gets to the third act.

Bo A. Vibenius who wrote the script for the film, had a masterstroke casting Christina Lindberg in the lead role as our luckless heroine. Beautifully innocent looking with a slim slight tiny body she is completely vulnerable. The writer and director also made her character a mute to escalate that vulnerability; completely robbed of speech she is even more helpless. We can do nothing but sympathize with her and we cannot take our eyes off the mesmerizing Lindberg. However, her role is the complete opposite of most of her films where she's depicted as a nymphomaniac who's always looking for a sexual adventure.

When we see her training to fight back, we are really rooting for her. When she finally takes her revenge without mercy, we are cheering her on with our fists in the air. Hopf is also convincingly excellent as the scumbag pimp Tony and we long for him to get his comeuppance.
 

Frigga, on her classic shots.

Another promotional poster.

As above mentioned, the footage of hardcore pornography used in the "Red Edition" is not remotely erotically raunchy as it is there to show the vileness of Madeline’s tragic ordeal as her body is used against her will. Forced to sell her body or die from heroin withdrawal constitutes forcible penetration not consensual sex. The shots are inserts of clips filmed elsewhere by body doubles and I am not going to beat around the bush here (excuse me) as the genitalia on display is so unattractive it is cringe making. Nevertheless, the porn inserts do help people understand Frigga is not a nymphomaniac slut who rejoices whenever she gets to swallow a sticky cum load. Actually, she's more like a victim who's relying on her forced work talents to get what she really wants: revenge.

Bo Arne Vibenius also employs an excessive amount of slower than slow motion when it comes to the action sequences. On my first viewing I just found this annoying, but going back, I sat up and took into account the visceral intensity on display here. Vibenius prolongs our experiences in the sheer brutality of the violence stretching it out to show us the grim nature of Madeline’s revenge. We have been patiently waiting a good hour for it having to witness the horrific plight of this poor little farm girl. Now satisfyingly that patience has paid off as she has turned into an arse kicking vengeance machine and we drown in the shower of delights of seeing these awful human beings that caused her misery get what they unquestionably deserve in glorious long spells of time.

And so begins the one eyed revenge.

Forced to be a hooker.

The film does have its plot holes. Traumatized by her rape as a child why would Madeline get into a stranger’s car considering her state of mind? Why does Tony give her Monday’s off when he has gone out of his way to abduct her, get her hooked on heroin and forced her into prostitution? Although the martial arts training is feasible when it comes to her lessons in the dojo, when she is kicked out by her instructor when he catches her about to take a fix of heroin how does she have the connections to get training from the military in hand to hand combat? How does she get an army officer to train her in rifle shooting before that? In addition, how does she find a stunt driver to give her driving lessons? Saying all this though, these scenes are entertaining and Tony’s freeing of Madeline one day a week only serve the purpose as a plot point to get her quest of revenge off to a start. There would not be much of a revenge movie otherwise. 

Something that does not sit well with me is the execution of the scene of Madeline losing her eye. Used for the extreme close-up shot of the scalpel going into the eye was the real corpse of a recently deceased girl who had committed suicide. Filmed in the hospital keeping the body applied to the eye was makeup before the scalpel went in. All this confirmed by Christina Lindberg. Bo Arne Vibenius has a stylistic eye and employs a lot of strange art house cinematography throughout with the odd choices of POV shots and off beat camera angles and beautifully shot Swedish landscapes mixed in with all the gratuitous exploitation shots. Therefore, is this purpose of execution striving for great art or just vulgar sensationalism? Either way I find it to be in very bad taste as it is disrespectful to the poor young girl who tragically took her own life and to her grieving loved ones.

Her only friend.

She was even forced to serve for Dykes.

Thriller, a Cruel Picture is a one of a kind film. There are many rape/revenge films out there but this one has a taste for crafted cinematography. If someone was to be introduced to Christina Lindberg, this would be the go to film. If someone was to be introduced to European sexploitation genre, this would be the go to film. If someone was to be introduced to a graphic revenge film, beautifully executed, this would be the go to film. If someone was to be introduced to Christina Lindberg's best film, yep, this would be the one movie to pick. 

Christina Lindberg filmography is comprised of approximately 24 films. Most of them weren't as intense as this one. In fact, most of her roles were that of a young swedish girl looking to get laid while looking innocent. Also, she posed naked for many magazines, since her undeniable beauty was something she wasn't afraid of sharing she became the ultimate Swedish sex starlet although she never did porn (she quit filming Flossie when she was told there would be hardcore scenes. After a while, Lindberg grew tired of her over sexualized image and decided to move on to something else)

Suffering the unbearable.

Exhausted after a working shift.

Anyways, Christina  Lindberg's legacy as a sexploitation starlet lingers on and the growing fandom (thanks to the internet for that) will keep her amongst the biggest exploitation stars of all times. Now, all we're left to do is hope for a DVD/Blu Ray release of the films that still haven't become officially available: her actual debut Rotmanad, Sex At The Olympics, Young Playthings and many other sexploitation films where she had minor but significant roles.

Here's the official movie trailer:

I Spit on Your Grave

Day of the Woman.

Of all the films that were implicated in the absurd and sickening tabloid-fueled "video nasties" witch-hunt in the UK, some were demonised more than others. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE joins a select few as being one of THE films cited for causing the most problems at the time. Certainly, the title and advertising campaign (in classic exploitation fashion) was garish and contentious, but unlike some other films that suffered the same fate (such as SS EXPERIMENT CAMP), Zarchi's film is extremely powerful and disturbing... not to mention widely misinterpreted.
I've read a large number of reviews of this film. A worryingly high percentage of them accuse this movie of somehow advocating rape, and being sexist and demeaning. That is the last thought that crosses my mind whilst watching this. The whole "rape/revenge" genre is one that is fraught with moral contradictions. In essence, films of this type ARE exploiting the subject of rape (and sadly, often presenting it in a sexually ambiguous way) but does this mean that they are not able to condemn the subject matter, or offer a powerful criticism of the behaviour of many men towards women? The same school of argument is used against critical film-making like CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST- can a film truly condemn what it exploits? I believe so, and I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a triumphant example of this, putting forward more powerful a message about violence of rape and the attitudes of some men towards it than any other movie I care to mention. However, it goes even deeper than this in this particular case. Zarchi doesn't praise the rapists- nor does he condemn them. Similarly he offers no moral judgment on the revenge that is carried out by the female protagonist. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE offers a truly subjective message in that it presents gritty reality and leaves the viewer to make up their mind on the matter.

Chillin' out before brutality strikes.

I will have my revenge, you fuckers.

Much is made of the fact that the rape scenes last for around forty minutes. It seems that a lot of critics think that by proxy, long scenes of violence equal pure exploitation. In this case, this is far from the truth. The scenes are horrific, grueling and ugly. There is no kind of glorification of rape here. The scenes are shot practically real-time which brings home the gritty and sickening nature of what is being displayed. Furthermore, a lot of the scenes are shot from the victim's perspective. The revolting sight of sweating, grunting men is absolutely anti-sexual and anti-erotic, which is of course EXACTLY what it should be in this context! Rape has little to do with sex, and a great deal more to do with violence and power. This is expressed superbly in the sequences in this film. Sanitising the scenes that are supposedly "exploitative" would trivialise the very serious issues at hand.

The men presented in I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE are nothing to emulate. Nothing is even said about the backgrounds of their characters- they are totally faceless within the context of the film (other than one long shot later on which shows one of the men with his family- merely proving him to be a liar and cheat as well as a rapist). The point here is that they don't even NEED character building- they represent the threat and actuality of sexual violence that women face every day. The final and most telling twist is that these men are then so gullible and arrogant that they could be seduced and murdered by the person they had attacked. If Ebert and all his sniveling comrades are really right about this film "promoting sexual violence", they must see something appealing in the behaviour of these men

Graphic Insanity.

Let's play a game you fucking fuck.

Despite what you might read elsewhere, I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is a tightly constructed and well crafted piece of film-making containing some powerfully symbolic imagery. Scenes such as Keaton sitting broken and alone in her house after her attacks or her swimming costume limply floating in the river are extremely effective. There is also practically no music in the entire film. The viewer can almost feel the sense of isolation at every stage of the story- initially it is liberating but it quickly becomes frightening as events unfold. The simple cinematography reflects the isolated feel of the locations that frame this film.

Many horror films can be fairly accused of being misogynistic. I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE takes these concepts of misogyny and totally turns them around. This film is EMPOWERING, and whilst it does have the cynical production of an exploitation feature, Zarchi took this and created a powerful, bitter and dynamic story with many issues being explored therein. It's great. Check it out if you haven't already, and if you've watched it before with the wrong approach to it, I demand you have another look. This is one of the pinnacles of the genre but sadly it is (in)famous for all the wrong reasons. 

Women are sacred, know that pig men.

This is the awesome movie tag line:


"This woman has just cut, chopped, broken and burned five men beyond recognition... but no jury in America would ever convict her!"



Here's the movie trailer, presented on 1980 for the re-release version of the film, which by the way was also known as Day of the Woman.

Lurkers

Lurkers
Directed by Roberta Findlay
Released: 1988
Starring: Christine Moore, Gary Warner, Marina Taylor, and Roy MacArthur
Running Time: 90 minutes

Review by Flying Zebras from Doomed Moviethon

Warning: Due to the heinousness of this film, major spoilers have been provided.

I have to admit, the premise of the movie isn't bad. They were going for the "Hell on Earth" theme with apartment buildings being the terrestrial form of Satan's realm. In this movie, all former occupants are doomed to spend eternity in the apartment block. Unfortunately an idea is about as far as they got. When it comes to actually hacking out a script, the creators of this POS hadn't a snowball's chance in hell.

My first gripe with the movie is the title. Lurkers. You'd think it was about creepy people who loiter in a suspicious manner. Nope. No one in this film lurks. Oh sure, there are a few characters who mosey around, but not one of them are sneaky, stealthy, or creepy enough to have their actions qualify as lurking.

The music sounds like it was recorded from a transistor radio. The sound sucks, but it's not really noticeable because the script is so lousy you don't really want to know what the characters are saying. The makeup looks like it was done by Tammy Faye Baker. And the special effects are about as lame as a quadriplegic.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned flaws are not bad enough to make the film amusing. Instead, it ends up being a mediocre, unwatchable pile of crap. And, as my contribution to humanity, I'm going to tell you all about it and spare you the pain of watching it.

It begins with a mother and her daughter in your average apartment. Mother is doing her best to emotionally abuse her daughter. Her daughter looks like the pathetic mewling little brat born to grow up, produce children, and abuse them. It’s a vicious cycle that will soon be cut short in this instance, but not short enough to spare the viewer pain. Eventually, after much screaming and very little acting, the daughter makes her way downstairs to the street.

Once in the street the daughter, Cathy, is entreated to play jump rope. Just a side note, this has got to be one of the most unusual apartment blocks I’ve ever seen. All of the children seem to be Cathy’s age and they are all white. Thank God they aren’t all platinum blondes, or I might think I was watching Village of the Damned. Still, they do try to kill Cathy by winding the jump rope around her throat. Unfortunately they fail. They fail because two characters that you will never learn about have a staring contest. Wow, who knew staring could do so much for a film?

After this we see Cathy (Christine Moore (Prime Evil)) as an adult. We almost see her get hit by a car, but the same creepy woman who saved Cathy’s sorry ass in the last scene keeps her from getting run over. (Stupid bitch!) Then Cathy’s sleazy fiancé points out in typical unintelligent style, "You almost blew it." I have to disagree. This film could only have gotten better if it ended right then with Cathy’s death by car.

Next, the director tortures his audience with a pseudo-photo shoot. Basically, the sleazy boyfriend, Bob (played by Gary Warner), is a photographer. Bob and Cathy waste film and my time by showing Bob taking pictures of Cathy. Gay! Imagine a dark haired chick dressed in 1980’s clothing holding up her hair and leaning against a tree. I take it back. It’s not chic enough to be gay. It’s just stupid.

Of course, after all this Bob has to develop the film. He does so while the viewer is treated to the ubiquitous tit shot. I can do without T&A in horror, but I had to laugh at this scene. Not only do the two whores showing half their all have no connection to the story other than being Bob’s models, they don’t do anything except change from one horrible costume into another. But what put this one over the top was that while they are changing and flashing their tits, they’re discussing embezzling.

After this we see Bob sitting in a chair when his partner, a good-looking chick named Monica (Marina Taylor), who sits down on a couch and opens her shirt. If you haven’t guessed by now, Bob’s drilling every hole in town. Monica starts bitching about the two models, and ends up asking about Bob’s wedding. It’s so wrong. It’s like asking, "What caterer are you using? Oh, by the way, could you fuck me while you’re here?" Instead of giving it to Monica, he confirms that he and Cathy will be at Monica’s party on Friday night.

Next comes the scene with the wedding planner. Bob makes an inside joke about mauve invitations, and the wedding planner shows how flaming he can be. After this we see Cathy playing her cello with some other artists in a studio. Some extras make like their fighting in the booth, Cathy sees the creepy little girl from the jump rope scene, and everyone watches, puzzled, as she runs out of the studio.

Next comes more shitty soft-core scenes. At least the chick has a nice rack. However, it gets creepy when Cathy asks Bob to leave the light on. He then says, "That’s why I love you, Cathy. You’re like a little girl." Ugh! In any case, the light doesn’t work as Cathy dreams of her mom murdering her dad. Cathy wakes up and whines to Bob about how her brother hates her and blames her for the murders.

Several boring scenes go by, and Cathy eventually asks her brother, Phil, the priest, to come to her wedding. He won’t talk to her inside the church, he won’t come to her wedding, and he tells her something’s wrong with her. This guy has to be the most un-priestliest priest I’ve seen. He has all the sensitivity of a dead mackerel. His crowning achievement in the film consists of two lines: 1. "The past is dead, just like mom and dad." and 2. "I have my own life now, my life with God. You can’t be part of that." Phil walks back into the church, and creepy girl shows up. She tells Cathy to go home. Cathy then has hallucinations about the murders.

Bob, gourmand that he is, brings pizza home for dinner. For sparkling dinner conversation he offers, "Maybe your brother is a queer." They then indulge in sex with pizza. More uninteresting scenes go by, and eventually we see Cathy and Bob driving to Monica’s in a red convertible. The creepy older woman from the jump rope scene gets in the car and tells Cathy not to go home. She then vanishes by moving over to the other seat.

They manage to make it to Monica’s buidling which (Oh my God!) just happens to be where Cathy’s parents were murdered. Cathy refuses to go inside. Bob displays his typical insensitivity and leaves her to wait on the sidewalk. While she’s alone, Cathy watches as a woman is being chased by a guy with a sledgehammer. She finally gets a clue and starts running. Every damn payphone she tries doesn’t work. (You’d think she was in Cabrini Green.)

Cathy runs by a black guy clutching a lamp post and pleading to God for help. She tries another payphone which doesn’t work. She runs into a gang that looks like they escaped from the set of the "Thriller" video. (I was scared!) She runs by a wrought iron fence with a dead chicken hanging from it. She watches as sledgehammer man kills the woman (FINALLY). She ends up in front of her old building where Bob refuses to believe her. He takes her upstairs where she hangs out with the locals before being informed she’s in a suburb of Hell.

The ending’s chaotic with an odd pseudo-lesbian scene between a drag queen and a lesbian, montages of S&M, and other shit that I have no idea what they were trying to do. She ends up on the roof where Bob tells her she was supposed to die with her parents, but they’re going to rectify the situation now. Cathy goes over the edge, and the demons are happy. The film ends with Monica, dressed as a nun, helping Phil, and Bob romancing some waitress he picked up in a bar. Some other stuff happens and there, the end.

This film sucks ass. Don’t watch it.

Hot Target

Official Movie Poster

Hot Target  has been described as an inferior English imitation of Body Heat.I felt the story in Hot Target was one which was much closer to real life as most people experience it - making it a film many viewers may find more meaningful and remember longer. 90% of paperback books listed as crime thrillers are about premeditated murders which, thank heaven, almost certainly constitute less than 10% of the serious crimes committed. The same goes for films, most viewers will never carefully plan and commit a murder and this makes it harder for them to identify with the characters in Body Heat. In Hot Target we have a wife who feels suffocated by life with an overbearing husband,and is therefore a relatively easy prey for the confidence trickster who seduces her in order to take impressions from her house keys whilst she is in the bathroom. Neither of them has any killer urge and this makes it easier to become involved in the story which seems closer to real life than to a lurid paperback novel.

Simone Griffith, the main character

Some would confirm that the performances by Simone Griffeth, Steve Marachuk & Bryan Marshall all leaded to a good acting pattern, almost believable as if you could have the chance of living the story being told. 


Exploitation? Sexploitation? well, the nudity is average for this kind of erotic drama films made in the 80's, and I would not consider it as exploitive, since every nude/sex scene fit with the plot line of an unsatisfied woman willing for more. For instance during a tryst in a secluded spot at a cricket match, a nipple shot lasting about one second served to show the couple were not discussing the finer points of England's national game. The nudity could probably have been dispensed with, but it contributed to the story so why should it have been? Some may not have been happy with this film's conventional aspect ratio, but all things considered I felt it was a competently made and enjoyable film.

More high class acting

The almighty IMDb rates this movie with 5 stars as average, and for such a B movie that is a very good rating. Anyways, there are thousands of movies dealing more succesfully with the plot line, but of course that's why we love the B movies genre, who wants to watch hollywood holy cows all the time??


Here's a special movie trailer:

Night Club/The Calendar Girl Killer

Today's reviews will be brief, not because I'm almost leaving to visit the circus in town, but because they have poor plot lines, and you know the acting is nothing too good to be discussing it as if we were dealing with a real movie. Not complaining! I like B-movies and this time I'd say there were some exploitation moments in both of them.

NIGHT CLUB (1990)

Nightclub is probably the worst movie I've seen in my entire life to date. It tries to have a plot about a sci-fi writer who's willing to start up a new business in the world of sex, so he's borrowed money from some "supposed" gangsters to buy a huge warehouse. The rest of the movie is him, having pointless discussions with his girlfriend (played by Elizabeth Kaitan) and then after the break ups, all make ups come with sex.

Elizabeth Kaitan, performing the same in every movie she was in

 Probably, as you can see in the pictures (I found nothing on images, videos or movie posters for Night Club) the movie was pointless and the only reason to lay eyes on the TV screen were probably the sex scenes which were'nt that original anyways. And to add some more crappy movie directing we don't even see the Night Club getting built, or worse we never hear from the gangsters that borrowed the main character the money (They tell this guy to give the borrowed money back within 24 hours and all you see is this main character guy riding his bike and her girlfriend)

Elizabeth Kaitan when she became famous in "Friday the 13th"

 Please, avoid this movie that is a good friendly piece of advice I could give you at no cost.






CLICK, THE CALENDAR GIRL KILLER (1990)


Movie number two allowed to have this theory about Crown International Pictures (the producers of most of the movies I've reviewed recently) and that theory is that they were going out of business, since exploitation was a thing of the past, plus even low budget movies were evaluated by the quality of the acting, filming and content, so there was no room for the Crown pals no more.

Miss playboy Donna Speir introducing the film

So, The movie is basically about a deranged transvestite nurse killing bimbo models during a closed fashion shoot in the California desert. But is the nurse connected to the deranged, violence-obsessed photographer who's putting on the shoot? Well, I don't want to ruin it, but it ruins itself pretty well. 

The movie starts with a gratuitous nude scene, and for that matter, a completely  gratuitous appearance by former Playmate Dona Speir. She completely disappears afterwards though when the action shifts out to the desert. There's plenty of other bimbos to be had, however, including future "Baywatch" babe Traci Dali. I have to wonder about the reviewers who say these girls are "unattractive"--if they happen to be personally dating MORE attractive girls than these, then they're definitely wasting their time reviewing crap movies on the internet. The girls are definitely very sexy both in and out of their skimpy bikinis, but--trust me here--this movie has absolutely NOTHING else going for it. Has-been matinée idol Troy Donahue and never-really-was character actor Ross Hagen are functional at best. The plot is generic and stupid. The visuals are cheap and uninspired. And the music is downright execrable.

A girl getting killed by the Nurse

This might be worth seeing for fifty cents, but it's definitely not worth a penny more.

The plot line? oh I forgot it! haha, well the plot line is about a photographer who's willing to have his masterpiece calendar with chicks with guns. As he gets dissapointed every time he shoots his camera he becomes this transvestite nurse (with flashback from his childhood being punished by some nurse) which wants to  get rid of every single model he works with for uhmmm no apparent reasons at all.

There's also the good guy, which will confront him by the end of the movie but still, it's worth fifty cents only.

Another pointless exploitation scene

So that's it for today! I stil have some more B movies to rate and within a month I'll go into the European exploitation movie class ,so Christina Lindberg and Lina Romay will be constantly mentioned from then on and oh! also the first Sissy Spacek film  and some more.

Stay Tuned!

Separate Ways "She needed his love...but had to leave home to get it"

Continuing with my "32 Drive-In Movie Cult Classics" box set released in 2010 by Millcreek Entertainment, I have to tell you it's been a hell of a good time watching this B-class collection of films, and as I'm waiting for some more cool movie packs such as the Savage Cinema 12 Movie Collection, Drive-In Movie Classics 50 Movie Pack, 4 outstanding Christina Lindberg movies and a Jess Franco movie pack I still have the pleasure of enjoying some of the movies I'm left to watch within my vacation period.

"Separate Ways" is a movie, more like an extended chapter of some sort of soup opera tells us about a vain, neglectful former race car driver turned automobile dealership owner Ken Colby (a fine portrayal by Tony Lo Bianco) and his sweet, but fed-up wife Valentine (a marvelously warm and appealing performance by Karen Black) are having marital problems. Not only does Ken have his hands full with his faltering business, but he's also having an affair with fetching co-worker Sheila (lovely Katherine Justice). When Valentine discovers Ken's infidelity, she has a fling of her own with nice, decent college student Jerry Lansing (the always affable David Naughton). This tasteful and thoughtful feature represents a radical departure for director Howard Avedis, who usually made such enjoyably trashy exploitation fare as "The Teacher," "Texas Detour," and "They're Playing With Fire." Avedis eschews his standard gleeful wallowing in the sleaze to offer instead an observant and compelling portrait of the difficulty found in sustaining a romantic relationship throughout the years and the severe toll a lack of open communication can have on said relationship. The uniformly excellent cast play their well-drawn and engaging true-to-life characters with commendable conviction: Lo Bianco and Black do stellar work in the lead roles (Black in particular is a total delight and looks absolutely gorgeous), with sturdy support from Arlene Golonka as Valentine's loyal, supportive best gal pal Annie Donahue, Sharon Farrell as Valentine's perky friend Karen Haskell, William Windom as Ken's excitable business partner Huey Block, Noah Hathaway as the Colby's darling son Jason, and Jack Carter as jolly bar owner Barney Brodsky. Both Dean Cundey's slick cinematography and the jazzy, tuneful score by John Cacavas and Bonnie Becker are up to speed. A poignant little dramatic sleeper.

Karen Black