Twice Upon a Time (1983)

Twice Upon a Time (1983)

Comments 1 comment

“The spring is on the loose. We’ve got to get it, and we’ve got to get it now!”

Synopsis:
Ralph the All-Purpose-Animal (Lorenzo Music) and his sidekick, Mum, are tricked by evil Synonamess Botch (Marshall Efron) — ruler of Murkworks Nightmare Factory — into releasing the “Magic Mainspring” from a “Cosmic Clock” of time, thus freezing activity in the human world of Din. They join forces with an inept superhero named Rod Rescueman (James Cranna) to free Greensleeves (Hamilton Camp) — the ruler of Frivoli, Home of Sweet Dreams — from Botch’s clutches, and prevent Botch from unleashing a torrent of nightmares on Din.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Animated Features
  • Fantasy
  • John Korty Films
  • Superheroes

Review:
This little-seen animated fantasy (produced by George Lucas, and co-directed by John Korty) features a unique form of animation known as “Lumage”, in which cut-out pieces of plastic and fabric are illuminated by light tables and combined with live-action stills and footage to create an effect much like that in Terry Gilliam’s animation, or found in the television series “South Park”. The overall result is both stunning and consistently innovative, helping to make up for the film’s supremely dated ’80s soundtrack (you’ll want to plug your ears) and rather labyrinthine storyline. Indeed, you’ll probably need more than one viewing to understand exactly who all the characters are in Twice Upon a Time, how they’re related, and what they’re up to — but you won’t mind rewinding, since the visuals are unique enough to merit another look.

In a creatively surreal twist, the main character (Lorenzo Music, best known as the voice of Garfield) is capable of changing animal-shapes as needed to best suit his situation (his “default” mode is an innocuously bearish-looking fellow); meanwhile, his black-hatted sidekick Mum — true to his name — never says a word, instead simply conducting a steady stream of magic tricks (they’re like a less abrasive, vertically altered version of Penn and Teller). These two hapless but well-meaning souls are thrown willy-nilly into a plot in which a motley crew of would-be heroes and superheroes must save the world from eternal nightmares — with the wry “assistance” of a hilariously no-holds-barred New York Fairy Godmother (“Call me FGM; I hate excess verbiage.”).

Despite its overt fairytale leanings, however, this one isn’t necessarily for kids — at least not the version I saw, which is full of surprisingly salty profanity (at one point Botch yells, “So come on, you garlic breathing, garbage sucking dipshits. Move out! I’m not talking tomorrow! Haul ass, you mothers!”) Apparently an alternate, sanitized version was also released, but regardless of which version you locate, the story itself may still be too scary and baroque for kids to fully “get”; it’s ultimately more for adults or adolescents. Read Ward Jenkins’ interview with writer Taylor Jessen for many more details about the making of the film, as well as all the various and sundry reasons for its failure to be released on DVD. For now, you’ll have to catch a rare copy on video or try to search for a streamed version online.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Impressive, highly creative “Lumage” animation

  • Enjoyably irreverent characterizations
  • Rod Rescueman’s botched “superhero test” with the Fairy Godmother
  • The “office nightmare” sequence

Must See?
Yes, as an historically important animated film. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book – for good reason!

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Canterbury Tales, The (1972)

Canterbury Tales, The (1972)

Comments 1 comment

“You take a path to Canterbury — well, good luck. The holy blessed martyrs will reward you.”

Synopsis:
A group of pilgrims travel to Canterbury, telling various bawdy tales along the way.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Black Comedy
  • Episodic Films<
  • Historical Drama
  • Hugh Griffith Films
  • Pier Paolo Pasolini Films

Review:
Pier Paolo Pasolini’s follow-up to his delightfully irreverent adaptation of Boccaccio’s The Decameron (1971) was this disappointing take on Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Casting many of the same actors, and utilizing authentic-looking costumes, sets, and props, Pasolini once again excels at viscerally evoking the grime and vibrancy of medieval Europe — but the same can’t be said for his storytelling abilities. Pasolini only loosely follows Chaucer’s actual text — indeed, it’s frustratingly difficult to figure out exactly who’s who, or which particular tales are being told; instead, he selectively draws from the book’s characters and situations in order to depict his own uniquely bawdy vision of hypocrisy, sexuality, and religion during the Middle Ages.

The opening story (“The Merchant’s Tale”), about a lecherous merchant named Sir January (Hugh Griffith) whose beautiful new wife, May (Josephine Chaplin), cuckolds him while he’s under a spell of blindness, is only mildly amusing, but at least promises more of the same type of naughty tales we saw in The Decameron.

The next vignette takes on a much darker tone, as we watch two different men — one wealthy, one poor — being spied on while committing the heretical act of “buggering”, then blackmailed.

The gruesome outcome poignantly points out the hypocrisy of medieval “pardoning”. The rest of the film, unfortunately, quickly goes downhill, as tale after tale fails to provide either much humor or insight. We’re exposed to plenty of explicit sex and genitalia, several explosive farts, and — in Pasolini’s infamous vision of hell near the end of the film — a red-skinned devil literally defecating friars.

Those who enjoy such coarse imagery will be delighted, but the rest of us will simply suffer.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine historical costumes, sets, and production design

  • The second tale, about the gruesome hypocrisy of “pardoning”

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply as the second in Pasolini’s famed “Trilogy of Life” (followed in 1974 with Arabian Nights). Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Carry On, Nurse (1959)

Carry On, Nurse (1959)

Comments 1 comment

“Listen: hospital life from the patient’s point of view… A series, it’s surefire.”

Synopsis:
A motley group of patients at a British hospital — including a journalist, a boxer, and a colonel — interact with nurses, visitors, and each other.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Doctors and Nurses

Review:
Between 1958 and 1978, 29 films in the enormously successful “Carry On” comedy series — directed by Gerald Thomas, and produced by Peter Rogers — were made at Pinewood Studios in England. Carry On, Nurse (the second in the series) was the highest grossing film in Britain in 1959, and is considered by many to be one of the best early entries in the series. Wikipedia describes the films as “an energetic mix of parody, farce, slapstick and double entendres” — but I must admit that they leave me completely cold. I didn’t laugh a single time throughout …Nurse, and am genuinely hard-pressed to understand what others might find humorous about the series.

There’s no real plot to speak of in Carry On, Nurse; instead, we’re meant simply to laugh at the exploits of the patients and their foibles, as well as those of the nurses trying to avoid the wrath of their glowering matron (Hattie Jacques). Every now and then, we’re treated to some amusingly risque statements — such as when a bumbling student nurse (Joan Sims) expresses frustration with a male patient who’s embarrassed to strip and take a bath in front of her, then looks down at his nether regions and coyly states, “Hmm… To think I called you a baby!” Other attempts at humor — such as the mere presence of a gay patient (Charles Hawtrey) who enjoys flamboyantly “conducting” while listening to music on his headphones — are much weaker.

All told, Carry On, Nurse is guaranteed to be a delightfully nostalgic treat for those who enjoy the series, but a tedious snooze for those (like me) who don’t quite “get” the humor.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A few mildly amusing scenarios (such as an overly diligent nurse who literally watches her patient 24/7)
  • The final “bunion surgery” scene

Must See?
Yes, but only as a representative sample of the series; another would likely do just as well, and don’t expect to be amused.

Categories

  • Historical Importance

Links:

Atomic Cafe, The (1982)

Atomic Cafe, The (1982)

Comments 3 comments

“When not close enough to be killed, the atomic bomb is one of the most beautiful sights in the world.”

Synopsis:
Archival footage documents Cold War America’s attitudes towards nuclear threat.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Documentary
  • Nuclear Threat
  • Propaganda

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this immensely popular documentary (made during the height of anti-nuclear-energy demonstrations in the early 1980s) “serves up a powerful smorgasbord of mind-blowing clips” from mid-century newsreels and governmental, military, and educational films which “both warned us about the Russian menace and eased our fears about the effects of nuclear fallout”. Audiences in 1982 were rightfully thrilled to revisit the media images and messages that most had naively accepted as legitimate and true just a few decades back; while such historical clips are now widely available on websites such as YouTube, the work of compilers Jayne Loader and Kevin and Pierce Rafferty at the time was clearly a lengthy labor of archival love.

I disagree with Peary, however, that the “picture would have even more impact and import if we learned whether these ridiculous propaganda films were the result of government naivete or were fully intended to deceive the public about the dangers of a nuclear build-up”; adding any kind of voice-of-God narration or commentary would disrupt the film’s remarkably effective approach of simply presenting the clips as-is, and leaving viewers to decide what to think about them. With that said, Loader et al. do utilize creative editing and juxtaposition to highlight some of the most egregious mistruths perpetuated by officials: as we hear government spokesmen talking about the lack of effects of nuclear testing in the South Seas, for instance, we see deeply disturbing footage of burned natives. Whether Americans today are any less deceived by “official” government statements is debatable; despite our presumed 21st century media savvy, it could be argued that we’re just as gullible and susceptible as we were in the 1950s.

Note: If you can stomach it, watch the recent, highly disturbing documentary Countdown to Zero (2010) for an update on the state of nuclear threat in our world.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A powerful montage of archival footage from diverse sources


  • Strikingly horrific imagery of nuclear explosions

Must See?
Yes, as an effective and historically relevant documentary.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Mutations, The (1974)

Mutations, The (1974)

Comments 1 comment

“He’ll soon be neither human nor plant, but with the characteristics and advantages of both: a plant that can move and think; a man who can set down roots.”

Synopsis:
A mad scientist (Donald Pleasence) obsessed with merging plant and human life forms has his facially deformed assistant (Tom Baker) kidnap university students (Olga Anthony and Scott Anthony) so he can perform genetic experiments on them; meanwhile, their friends (Julie Ege, Brad Harris, and Jill Haworth) try to find out why they’ve disappeared.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Carnivals and Circuses
  • Donald Pleasence Films
  • Horror
  • Killer Plants
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Science Fiction

Review:
Famed cinematographer Jack Cardiff directed over a dozen feature-length films during his illustrious career; this campy cult horror film was the last of them. It’s inspired in part by Tod Browning’s Freaks (1932), given its cast of physically “abnormal” performers who are upset that their nominal leader (Baker) doesn’t consider himself “one of them” — in fact, the infamous “We accept you, one of us!” dinner party sequence from Freaks is directly replicated here.

Unfortunately, the bulk of the movie is taken up with a rather nonsensical mad scientist plot, in which Pleasence — with completely noble goals, of course:

— turns his experimental “subjects” (conveniently, two of them are his own students) into laughably silly-looking plant-monsters.

At least the picture looks good, with vibrantly colorful set designs — and the mid-film “freak show” is worth a look.

I like how these actors — including a real-life “Alligator Lady”, “Bearded Lady”, “Frog Boy”, and “Human Pincushion”, as well as a man known as “Popeye” who can bug his eyes out at will:





— are treated with relative dignity, and each allowed to carefully explain their syndrome to the audience if they wish. These sympathetic characters should have been the central focus of the film.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The undeniably fascinating carnival “freak show”
  • Colorful set designs

Must See?
No. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Zero de Conduite / Zero for Conduct (1933)

Zero de Conduite / Zero for Conduct (1933)

Comments 1 comment

“War is declared! Down with teachers! Up with revolution!”

Synopsis:
A group of boys (Louis Lefebvre, Gilbert Pruchon, Gerard de Bedarieux, and Constantin Goldstein-Kehler) at a repressive boarding school rebel against their teachers and midget headmaster (Delphin).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Boarding School
  • French Films
  • Rebellion
  • Surrealism

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “remarkably subversive film” by writer/director Jean Vigo, which was banned by French censors until after World War II, is “poetic, surreal, and wildly comical.” Peary argues that “it’s a tribute to the honest spontaneity of children, their creativity, and their anarchical… spirit that causes them to wage war against the repressive rules of the hypocritical bourgeoisie”; whether or not one agrees with this broader Marxist reading of the boys’ action, Zero de Conduite certainly represents the rebellious spirit most of us wish we were brave enough to express during our own schooling. Indeed, the film managed to strike such a common nerve that it had a tremendous effect on future filmmakers — including Francois Truffaut and Lindsay Anderson, whose The 400 Blows (1959) and If… (1969), respectively, are each unique homages to this earlier film.

At only 41 minutes long, Zero de Conduite is more a series of loosely cohesive vignettes than a traditional narrative. Vigo’s primary concern is with establishing a specific milieu — a seedy boarding school somewhere in France, where fat old teachers feel free to fondle pretty young boys, the headmaster is a tyrannical midget, his assistant steals food from the boys, and the chef cooks beans for dinner night after night. As the “story” progresses, it heads in an increasingly surreal direction — but unlike Bunuel’s L’Age d’Or (1930), for instance, Vigo’s screenplay only gradually reveals its fantastical turn, in a few delightfully select moments (a teacher’s drawing comes to animated life; the boys are somehow able to completely upturn a teacher’s bed while he’s sleeping). As with his only feature-length film, L’Atalante (1934), Vigo collaborated with cinematographer Boris Kaufman and composer Maurice Jaubert to create a number of provocative images and sequences — including the infamous “feather pillow fight” (watch for a surprising bit of frontal nudity as the boys progress in a slow motion parade afterward — Vigo was fearless), and the liberating finale.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Vigo’s surreal screenplay

  • Many memorable images and sequences

  • Boris Kaufman’s cinematography
  • Maurice Jaubert’s score

Must See?
Yes, as an historically important classic of French cinema.

Categories

  • Controversial Film
  • Foreign Gem
  • Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)

Comments 2 comments

“That rabbit has a vicious streak a mile wide.”

Synopsis:
In medieval England, King Arthur (Graham Chapman) and his servant (Terry Gilliam) solicit help from a group of knights — Sir Lancelot (John Cleese), Sir Robin (Eric Idle), Sir Belvedere (Terry Jones), and Sir Galahad (Michael Palin) — in finding the Holy Grail.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Historical Drama
  • Medieval Times
  • Monty Python Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Search

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this “side-splitting comedy by England’s premier comedy troupe” is, “despite a rushed ending”, the group’s “best film to date, the one that made converts out of those… who never watched their cult TV series.” He notes that “we laugh because of the crazy characters, foolish dialogue, and ridiculous incidents that occur, but also because someone… had the gall to make a historical picture with such shoddy production values that all [the] horses are invisible and the sound of galloping steeds is made by… striking coconuts together”. Indeed, given their rather severe budget limitations, it’s genuinely impressive how much of the “look” of medieval England the troupe was able to achieve — complete with “mist, mud, peasants living in squalor, forest lakes, colorful costumes, and castles”.

As Peary notes, the film satirizes, among other things, “the French, homosexuals, communists, [and] kings”, as well as “cowardice” and — most harshly — “senseless British gallantry”. Nothing about the King Arthur legend is left sacred: Sir Robin is revealed to be a cowardly ninny; Sir Lancelot rushes into a massacre without stopping to verify that he’s in the right place; the Black Knight (Cleese) refuses to stop swordfighting despite the loss of one limb after the other. Other humor — such as the infamous “killer rabbit” sequence — is more random and less historically situated, but still stupidly hilarious if you’re in the right mood. While some sequences inevitably fall flat, Monty Python the Holy Grail remains indispensable must-see viewing at least once for all film fanatics. It’s too much of a cult classic to miss.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Excellent use of low-budget costumes, props, and sets
  • Peasants complaining to King Arthur about being “repressed”
  • An irreverent look at disposal of bodies (both dead and alive) during the Black Death
  • King Arthur chopping off the Black Night’s limbs, one by one (“It’s only a flesh wound.”)
  • Sir Galahad ignoring the requests of nubile girls — between the ages of 16 and 19 — at Castle Anthrax
  • Sir Lancelot nobly but wrong-headedly murdering members of a wedding party in an attempt to save a “damsel” in distress
  • The “killer rabbit” sequence
  • Terry Gilliam’s animated interludes
  • The incredibly silly opening credits

Must See?
Yes, as a comedic classic and cult favorite. Nominated by Peary as one of the best films of the year in his Alternate Oscars book.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Atalante, L’ (1934)

Atalante, L’ (1934)

Comments 1 comment

“Paris, Paris! Oh infamous, marvelous city!”

Synopsis:
A pair of young newlyweds (Dita Parlo and Jean Daste) find their happiness threatened when Parlo becomes bored with life aboard Daste’s barge, L’Atalante, and desires more excitement in Paris.

Genres:

  • At Sea
  • City vs. Country
  • French Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Newlyweds

Review:
In addition to his 47-minute featurette Zero de Conduite (1933), Jean Vigo only made one full-length film — this tale of newlywed bliss and strife — before his untimely death from lung failure at the age of 29. More a visual “tone poem” than a complex narrative (indeed, the dialogue is almost superfluous), L’Atalante tells the simple yet powerful story of newlyweds whose marital happiness is quickly disrupted by Parlo’s realization that life aboard her husband’s shipping vessel is cramped, dirty, and boring, and won’t offer nearly the level of excitement she was hoping for when leaving her provincial home. Fortunately, photogenic Parlo never comes across as shrewish in her demands; rather, she’s seductively sweet as a true innocent learning about both the wider world and conjugal bliss for the first time. Her scenes with Daste — they grasp for each other at every chance — are alternately playful and deeply erotic, effectively depicting the strong sexual tensions holding this couple together despite the challenges they face.

Parlo gains at least some measure of enjoyment from getting to know “Papa Jules” (Michel Simon), Daste’s grizzled shipmate with a penchant for odd curios, and a mild crush on the young bride. Whenever he’s on-screen, Simon — only 40 in real life, though his character appears to be older — dominates the story. Simon was an acknowledged star by this point in his career, and his semi-improvised scenes throughout L’Atalante show why; with his hound dog countenance and clownish demeanor, he’s both riveting and hilarious to behold. He’s incorrigible, too — as indicated in his irreverent retort to Daste when questioned about a photo of a nude woman on his cabin wall:

Daste: “What’s the picture?”
Simon: “Me as a kid!”

The true “stars” of L’Atalante, however, are Vigo and cinematographer Boris Kaufman (along with composer Maurice Jaubert), who collectively depict some of the most haunting and memorable images in French film history. Notable sequences (just a few among many) include the opening “wedding march”; Parlo discovering Simon’s “pickled hands” in a jar; Daste seeing Parlo’s bridal visage while swimming underwater; and Vigo’s masterful depiction of the couple reaching out to one another in sleep from their separate beds. L’Atalante makes it clear that Vigo possessed a uniquely poetic voice in cinema; this “first feature” is a sad hint of his future genius, had he lived past the age of 30.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A sweet, sensual depiction of newlywed love
  • Michel Simon as Papa Jules
  • Dita Parlo as Juliette
  • Excellent use of naturalistic locales
  • Boris Kaufman’s cinematography
  • Countless memorable images and scenes



  • Maurice Jaubert’s playful score

Must See?
Yes, as an early classic of French cinema. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Sextette (1978)

Sextette (1978)

Comments 1 comment

“Marriage is like a book: the whole story takes place between the covers.”

Synopsis:
An aging film star named Marlo Manners (Mae West) arrives in London with her sixth new husband, Lord Barrington (Timothy Dalton), eager to consummate their marriage — but a host of issues, some engineered by her loyal assistant (Dom DeLuise), get in the way.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Actors and Actresses
  • Comedy
  • George Hamilton Films
  • Mae West Films
  • May-December Romance
  • Musicals
  • Newlyweds
  • Play Adaptation
  • Ringo Starr Films
  • Tony Curtis Films
  • Walter Pidgeon Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary’s review of this infamous cult movie — Mae West’s final film, made when she was 85 years old — is rather cursory. He notes simply that West “doesn’t deliver her lines badly, thank goodness”, and that while “it’s an awful picture”, it “could have been even worse”. However, I must say that I’m not quite in agreement. While there are plenty of truly awful movies listed in Peary’s book — movies that should never, under any circumstance, be associated with the words “must see” — this actually isn’t one of them. Instead, Sextette is a prototypical “bad movie” — a movie so outrageous in conceit and execution that its very existence gives one pause (how? why? what?!) and some measure of bizarre enjoyment.

As narratives go, the story — based on a play written by West — isn’t really all that terrible: it’s a zany farce full of double entendres, sexual innuendos, and innocuous musical numbers, and director Ken Hughes moves everything along at a fast clip. The “problem”, of course, is in the casting of West herself, whose advanced age defies our sense of sexual “normalcy” and “propriety”. Could Sextette be viewed as the ultimate May/Mae-December romance? It’s too bad, in a way, that West’s “real” age — or even something reasonably close to it — is never made explicit in the film, because a movie about an acknowledged octogenarian sexpot-actress would really be something!

Unfortunately, West’s performance here is passable at best — and while it lies at the center of the film’s fame, it’s sadly (almost comically) one-note. She struts creakedly across the elaborate sets, attempting to infuse some pizazz into her lines (many of which are cribbed directly from her earlier films), but since she only has one frozen expression, and a few familiar mannerisms (gently patting her hilarious pouf of a blonde wig, pursing her lips, rolling her eyes upwards), she’s more like a moving, talking statue than a viable living creature — wind her up and she’ll spout quips like the following (chosen at random as a representative sample):

Dalton: Oh darling, I think I’ve pulled a muscle.
West: Don’t worry – I’ll straighten it out for you.

Faring much, much better than West are her numerous male co-stars, who deserve major kudos for being so incredibly game. Dom DeLuise is amusingly sincere as West’s loyal assistant (secretly in love with her, as he reveals in a singing solo), while young Dalton has completely redeemed himself in my eyes after the debacle of his early performance as Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights (1970). He’s a Bond who can sing! (anyone who’s seen Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! will understand the reference). Meanwhile, both Tony Curtis and George Hamilton seem to be having great fun making brief appearances as two of West’s former husbands (both, naturally, still in love/lust with her).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Dom DeLuise as Dan Turner
  • Timothy Dalton as Lord Barrington
  • Dalton singing “Love Will Keep Us Together” to his new bride
  • Tony Curtis as “Alexei” (Husband #2)
  • George Hamilton as “Husband #5”
  • West visiting a room full of male Olympian gymnasts

Must See?
Yes — it’s simply too much of a bizarre cult experience to miss sitting through at least once.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Pom Pom Girls, The (1976)

Pom Pom Girls, The (1976)

Comments 1 comment

“Who the hell do you think you are — James Dean?”

Synopsis:
In 1970s Southern California, horny teenage buddies Johnnie (Robert Carradine) and Jesse (Michael Mullins) have fun in the sun while pursuing a couple of cheerleaders (Lisa Reeves and Jennifer Ashley) and trying to avoid bullying by a menacing football coach (James Gammon) and Reeves’ hulky boyfriend (Bill Adler).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cheerleaders
  • High School
  • Teenagers

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is ultimately too generous in his review of this utterly tiresome “sex and mayhem” teen comedy, which he accurately notes “doesn’t live up to its underground reputation” as a “bonafide cult hit”. He points out that the male leads are “jerks” (Carradine would fare much better as uber-nerd Louis Skolnick in Revenge of the Nerds), Joseph Ruben’s direction is “unimaginative”, and “the rude boys’ behavior is annoying”.

The “conventional storyline” doesn’t offer anything new or interesting to the genre of teen sexploitation flicks — and while Peary claims that “there are enough okay moments… to make it acceptable drive-in fare”, it’s certainly nothing all-purpose film fanatics should have to sit through. This is one tedious flick.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Not much.

Must See?
Definitely not.

Links: