Category Archives: 70’s Movies

Billy Jack (1971)

billy jack 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: That’s one mean kick.

Barbara (Julie Webb) is the daughter of Mike (Kenneth Tobey) who is the deputy sheriff of the nearby town.  She comes home one day after having run away and advises him that she is now pregnant, but has no idea who the father is as she had taken part in a sex orgy at some hippie commune, which outrages her father so much he beats her severely. To escape she hides out at the nearby alternative Indian school run by Jean (Delores Taylor), but Mike tries to use his authority as an officer to force them to turn her over and it is up to half-breed Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin) to protect her and the rest of the school from the town’s vindictive force and prejudice.

Although this movie has justifiably been lambasted for years as being more political propaganda than an actual story it still has some surprisingly effective moments. One of the best is the fight scene that takes place in the middle of town where Billy fights off the bad guys by using a Hapkido fighting technique where he raises his leg and kicks his assailant in the face with his foot. Some of the skits done in the school by the students as well as other young performance artists are fun particularly the one where the parents and teens are forced to reverse roles and the majestic aerial photography of the rustic New Mexican landscape is breathtaking.

Writer/director Laughlin casts himself in the title role, which in some ways seems a little bit like a vanity project. The character is poorly defined and subsists too much on a mystique. Having him somehow survive being shot in the stomach is too extreme and Laughlin gives a very one-note performance and is able to show only one emotion, which is that of a brooding, constant anger.

Taylor, who was Laughlin’s real-life wife, comes off better. Her face is weathered and she is no beauty by the conventional standard, but she seems to genuinely exude the values of her character and the scenes showing her after she is raped as well as the one where she begs Billy Jack to surrender during a shootout are emotionally charged and well down.

billy jack 3

The rest of the supporting cast is so-so with the adults coming off better. It’s a great chance to see young stars in the making including Howard Hesseman and Richard Stahl a comic actor whose deadpan delivery is second-to-none. Some of the young school girls are cute including Debbie Schock who at the time was Laughlin’s kid’s real-life babysitter. However, the teens acting is poor and they are given too much screen time without any ability to carry the film. The worst is Stan Rice who plays Martin and whose frozen facial expressions and monotone delivery makes him seem like he is a zombie.

David Roya as Bernard Posner the main antagonist in the film gives a decent performance, but the character’s motivations are confusing. He is aggressive with everyone and yet when Billy Jack appears he freezes up even though Billy is nothing more than a shrimp of a guy wearing a dorky looking hat. One scene in a café has Billy going on a long overly-dramatic rant and he turns his back to Bernard who remains frozen in terror even though he could’ve easily just whacked Billy in the back of his head and knocked him out. Another scene has Billy standing next to Bernard’s car who is in the driver’s seat and orders him to drive the vehicle into the lake, which he obediently does even though I thought he could’ve put the car into reverse and either run Billy over or forced him to jump into the lake instead.

The idea was to show that Bernard was a coward, but even a coward can act aggressively if given the upper-hand and by having him behave in such a strange way makes these scenes and the film as a whole seem very implausible and amateurish. Apparently actor Roya had these very same concerns and he argued with Laughling about them, which ended up creating a lifelong rift between the two.

The characterizations are broad, but on an emotional level it still works particularly the final scene where the students line-up and defiantly raise their fists into the air as Billy Jack is being driven away. The film’s pacifist stance while still delivering a high quota of violence has taken a beating by the critics through the years, but I saw it a little bit differently. I interpreted the message to be that pacifism is good in theory, but not always effective in execution.

billy jack 1

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: May 1, 1971

Runtime: 1Hour 54Minutes

Rated GP

Director: Tom Laughlin

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video, Netflix streaming

Alucarda (1977)

alucarda 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Another Exorcist rip-off

Justine (Susana Kamini) arrives at a convent after the death of her parents. She meets up with a strange young woman named Alucarda (Tina Romero) who almost immediately professes her true love for Justine and the two make a weird pact. Alucarda then seems to become possessed and it rubs off on Justine sending the nuns and priest at the convent into a panicked frenzy to rid both girls and the place from the evil presence.

This bizarre, cheap Mexican production comes off like someone’s drug induced acid trip. Yet it has still managed to acquire a small cult following and even has one reviewer at IMDB calling it ‘brilliant’ even though I found it to be anything but and only reconfirms that there is somebody out there that will like anything. Juan Lopez Moctezuma’s direction is unfocused and undisciplined. The story borders on being almost incoherent with wild twists and story arches that occur at a breakneck pace. The special effects are tacky and there isn’t a single scare in the whole thing.

This supposedly takes place in the 18th century, but the priest wears a wardrobe that looks like he is from China even though the setting is Mexico and the outfits worn by the nuns defy any era and appear to be made by a costume designer who was drunk. The pounding rock-like score has a resemblance to music from Tangerine Dream, but a much weaker version and doesn’t connect with the time period that the story is in. It has elements that will remind you of Suspira and Ken Russell’s The Devils, but both of those films are far superior to this one and only make you wish you were watching those instead.

The acting is amateurish and over-the-top, but star Romero has an interesting look in her eyes and reminded me a bit of a young Genevieve Bujold. There is an abundance of nudity and low-grade eroticism that may make it appealing to some. I did get a kick out of the way the nuns and priest overact and wilt at simply the mention of the devil and Satanism, which I found to be unintentionally funny.

This is just another attempt to cash in on the success of The Exorcist and like the rest of them fails miserably. This isn’t entertaining even on a camp level and I would suggest avoiding it completely.

alucarda 1

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: March 10, 1977

Runtime: 1Hour 14Minutes

Rated R

Director: Juan Lopez Moctezuma

Studio: Yuma Films

Available: DVD

Money Talks (1972)

money talks

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: It’s all about money.

Allen Funt the creator of ‘Candid Camera’ returns with his second cinematic feature all centered around pranks and stunts done on unsuspecting regular people to see just how far they will go when presented with the allure of money. The film examines the deep seated psychological effect that money has in society and how it controls what people do and in some cases what they don’t do.

This feature is an improvement over Funt’s first. Fortunately he keeps the majority of it on a comic level and avoids trying to make unnecessary ‘profound’ social statements. The film is also faster paced and although the music is still annoying it isn’t as bad and has a bit more of a funky beat. Some of the stunts aren’t necessarily all that funny and few become rather redundant and predictable. However, the majority of them I liked and even found fascinating including the one where a woman walks down the street and intentionally allows dollar bills to fall out of a hole in her pocket and drop to the ground behind her and how surprisingly many people would pick them up and chase after her to give them back. The funniest one is where a mild mannered middle-aged woman gets a job answering phone calls for a man who she finds out is a professional hit man. Hearing her diligently taking down an order and answering questions over the price of a hit while trying to mask her shock and remain calm had me laughing-out-loud.

A few of them are definite artifacts of a bygone era including the many relentless attempts a woman goes through to try to retrieve a simple five dollar bill that is lodged beneath a car tire. Another segment has a bare foot hippie girl begging for money on a street sidewalk and her startlingly naïve willingness to go back to a strange man’s apartment who approaches her and says he has shoes for her, which she almost does until Funt and crew advise her not to.

A few of the pranks have celebrities in disguise. My favorite was the one with actress Marian Mercer pretending to be a waitress and asking beforehand how much of a tip the customer planned to give her, so she could plan out what type of service she would give him. The segment where comedian Henny Youngman has no money to pay a hot dog vendor, so instead he tells the irritated man a bunch of lame jokes as ‘payment’ is quite funny and I wished it had been extended longer. Muhammad Ali’s bit isn’t quite as good, but his personality is as engaging as ever.

The film also has some good interviews including an opening bit where a commercial jingle writer comes up with on-the-spot a ditty for the film’s theme, which is not bad. Dominic the knife sharpener becomes almost a show in itself with the flamboyant way that he tries to bargain with Funt over not only how much he should be paid to sharpen his knives, but also for his fee to appear in the film. The interviews with hippies who don’t have jobs and don’t want them could have been more interesting had we seen what happened to them twenty years later and if they were still adamantly in the non-work camp, which I doubt. Funt also interviews his own 6-year-old daughter who is surprisingly more perceptive than you might think.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: August 30, 1972

Runtime: 1Hour 21Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Allen Funt

Studio: United Artists

Available: Amazon Instant Video, Netflix streaming

What Do You Say to a Naked Lady? (1970)

what do you say to a naked lady 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Adult style Candid Camera

Allen Funt was a man who started a show in the 40’s on radio called ‘Candid Microphone’, which would catch everyday people in weird, unexpected situations and then get their reactions. With the advent of TV the show switched to the new medium and called itself ‘Candid Camera’ and it became a hit that lasted well into the 70’s. This movie looks at some of the X-rated gags that were too hot for TV. The majority of them have to do with naked women bumping into unsuspecting men in public and getting their reaction. There are also hidden cameras showing viewers watching this movie and then getting their feedback.

The majority of the film really isn’t all that funny. The reactions of the people are predictable and the novelty of seeing people caught off guard by the sight of a naked beautiful woman wears off pretty quickly. Some of the better moments include an interview with a middle-aged woman who sleeps around with a lot of men and admits that she likes it when they get rough with her during sex as that heightens the excitement. There is also an interview with a seventeen-year-old girl who confides to already having sex with 20 men and feels that it can enhance the marriage by being more sexually experienced and not a virgin. Then the girl’s mother watches the interview and admits that although she did ‘save herself for marriage’ she regrets it and feels that her daughter has a good point. Another funny segment deals with a woman looking to be at least 90 who talks about liking big penises and reading sex manuals that shocks even Funt.

Some of the moments where people don’t react instead of when they do are actually more interesting particularly when various different women find themselves alone in a room with a naked man. Another segment deals with an interracial couple openly making out in public, which at the time was still considered ‘controversial’, while in front of senior citizens who respond indifferently and even ignore it, which if anything gets Funt upset and he tries to goad them a little, but to no effect.

The film’s biggest weakness is that it tries biting-off-more-than-it-can-chew. The ‘Candid Camera’ TV-show was nothing more than a gimmick for laughs and this film should have left it at that level, but instead Funt tries to make some ‘profound’ statement in relation to society’s sexual hypocrisy and changing mores that now seem dated and derivative. What may have been titillating at the time is now stale and boring.

The movie’s musical score is another major problem.  All the songs have a generic ‘Sesame Street’ melody to them and the lyrics of each song narrate what is happening on the screen, which isn’t necessary and condescending to the viewer.

There is also a segment where Funt interviews people on the street asking them if they know how birds have sex, which I found interesting because I never thought about it before and it got me to go to Wikipedia to read about it. However, the film never answers its own question, which I thought was weak. They should have shown some nature footage of two birds ‘getting-it-on’, which probably would have been the most provocative and genuinely fascinating thing in the whole movie.

what do you say to a naked lady 1

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: February 18, 1970

Runtime: 1Hour 25Minutes

Rated X

Director: Allen Funt

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD, Amazon Instant Video

Punishment Park (1971)

punishment park 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Grueling race in desert.

Political radicals from the Vietnam era are arrested and then giving a choice between either spending time in federal prison or participating in a grueling race in the desert known as ‘Punishment Park’. A news crew comes along to cover the events, but finds that the soldiers hired to monitor the race use increasingly brutal treatments on the participants and the violence and elements soon get out-of-hand. Tempers and emotions run high and ugly, angry confrontations abound.

This film really packs a punch. It has a lot of raw emotion that seems missing in so many other films. Director Peter Watkins allowed the cast to ad-lib and his loose style helps create a vivid and unpredictable atmosphere. The ongoing arguments between the prisoners and those hired to judge and interrogate them is very entertaining and the highlight of the whole film. The editing between the interrogations and the race is sharp and intense.  The violence and most especially the ending is brutal and disturbing. Despite this being a pseudo-documentary it is so skillfully done that it seems very much like the real thing.

The only flaw with the film is the fact that no policemen would allow the film crew to go free, or at least not destroy their footage after capturing their brutal and unlawful methods. Most likely the crew would have ended up receiving the same ugly fate as the other victims.

This is a very emotionally charged film that should get a strong reaction from anyone who sees it. This is also a great chance to see independent filmmaking before it was trendy and working completely outside of the mainstream.

punishment park 1

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: October 9, 1971

Runtime: 1Hour 28Minutes

Rated R

Director: Peter Watkins

Studio: Sherpix

Available: DVD (Region 1 and 2), Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video

The Hellstrom Chronicle (1971)

hellstrom chronicle

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Bugs rule the world.

Basically this is nothing more than a nature film quite similar to the ones you saw in grade school. The only difference here is that it is overblown with silly dramatic elements and ‘scare’ tactics that make it seem much more important than it really is. Pretty much it’s just microscopic photography of bugs and insects as it examines their behavior and the fact that they are more adaptable to their environments than humans and therefore in the long run the survival rate of their species is higher.

When it sticks to the science part it can be interesting and even captivating. Raw nature up close can’t be beat just seeing the basic transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly is fun. There is also a cool close-up view of a Venus flytrap plant catching its prey and an exciting battle between fighter termites and army ants trying to invade their fortress. There are also an intriguing look at the bee community, fire ants, and the ugly habits of a black widow spider.

Where the film falls apart is when it tries to be this faux documentary and brings in actor Lawrence Pressman to play a fictionalized scientist named Nells Hellstrom. At the time Pressman was just starting out so not many viewers knew that he was actually an actor. Now it is quite obvious and it seriously hurts the credibility of the entire picture. What’s more is that they overplay the whole ‘mad scientist’ bit. They have his hair disheveled, his eyes glazed over and he talks about how his obsession with bugs has cost him many friends and jobs. It becomes laughable especially when you realize all of his ‘major findings’ are rudimentary and generalized.

There is also a segment where they have ‘Candid Camera’-like experiments showing everyday people’s reactions when they come across bugs at unlikely places. Supposedly these are non-scripted, but they come-off more like a set-up. One has a man sitting at a restaurant eating a salad. When he finds a bug in it he merely pushes it away and continues to just sit there. Anyone else would most certainly holler at the waitress and demand a new salad or their money back.

The technology at their research labs looks horribly dated. Their own thesis, which is in the end bugs are superior to man, is really full-of-holes. So what if they are able to survive in a chemically infested polluted environment where man could not. Who would want to live there anyways? Simply watch this film for its nature aspect and tune out the rest of the drivel. Some of the scenes get a bit explicit so don’t watch on a full stomach either.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: June 28, 1971

Runtime: 1Hour 30Minutes

Rated G

Director: Walon Green

Studio: Wolper Pictures

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray

Street Girls (1975)

street girls

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Father searches for daughter.

Angel (Christine Souder) is a young woman out on her own for the very first time. To make ends meet she gets a job at a topless bar, but this leads to working as a prostitute and getting hooked onto heroin by her brutal pimp boyfriend. When her father Sven (Art Burke) goes searching for her he finds himself swept in the seedy side of life and the people who populate it almost as much as her.

This otherwise low budget and forgotten film’s biggest claim to fame is that it is the first feature credited to Barry Levinson as the screenwriter who also worked as the assistant cameraman during the production. Levinson has never talked about it in any interview and it is easy to see why. The script is filled with a lot of rambling dialogue that goes nowhere. The story is basic and boring and seems preoccupied with taking advantage of the ‘shock value’ of its topic which these days has lessened.  It’s more clichéd than anything although the scene where one of Angel’s johns asks her to put on some goggles so that he can, to her shock, pee all over her does deserve mention.

This film is very similar to Paul Schrader’s Hardcore that starred George C. Scott and came out four years later and deals with a desperate father’s search for his daughter who has gotten into the world of porn. I actually like this film a bit better to that one. For one thing this one focuses more on the daughter and her experiences while that one solely centered on the father, which wasn’t as interesting. The father here isn’t quite as one-dimensional either. Yes he has all the caricatures of a middle-aged Midwestern man from the period including being homophobic, but I got a kick out of the way he initially gets into the naked girl dancers and likes it as long as of course it isn’t his daughter that’s doing it.

The acting swings from tolerable to really bad, but I did like Carol Case as Sally who has the most screen time and looks like a cross between Susan Anton and singer Carly Simon. Paul Pompain has a certain menacing quality as the brutal pimp although watching him constantly beat up his prostitutes and even kill one didn’t seem to make any sense as these girls were his may source of income and as my friend stated who watched this movie with me “He’s hurting their resale value.”

The picture is grainy with a faded washed out look and muffled sound that makes it seem almost like someone’s cheap homemade movie and yet it is well enough paced that it remains watchable. The scene where the father and daughter finally meet I found to be surprisingly touching.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: January 16, 1975

Runtime: 1Hour 14Minutes

Rated R

Director: Michael Miller

Studio: New World Pictures

Available: None at this time.

The Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart (1970)

the magic garden of stanley sweeheart

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: An aimless, carefree lifestyle.

Based on the novel by Robert T. Westbrook who also wrote the screenplay the film centers on Stanley (Don Johnson in his film debut) an underground filmmaker living in an apartment that is almost continually bombarded with the noise of a construction site next door. He has big dreams and ambitions, but at times seems awkward and unsure of himself. He meets Cathy (Dianne Hull) who he initially is just interested in for sex, but then he starts to fall-in-love with her and when she breaks up with him he finds it hard to handle.

The movie starts out well. I enjoyed the free-style direction and narrative. Cutting back and forth showing things as they are versus how Stanley would like them to be is fun, but the film deviates away from this when it would have been more interesting had it stayed this course all the way through. There is a certain element of one of Andy Warhol’s anti-movie movies here where the film tries to challenge the viewer’s conventional understanding of protagonists, plot, character development and all around narrative structure and it is no surprise that Warhol really liked this movie. It does have a strong cinema vertite approach that gives you a feeling like you are right there with the characters and to a certain extent helps bring the 60’s back to life.

Unfortunately the direction is too lackadaisical and unfocused and the story is uninteresting. Looking more at Stanley’s underground films could have given it a little more bite, but we only get a glimpse of one of his movies and then that thread is pretty much forgotten. The second half of the film centers on Stanley’s relationship and ultimate break-up with Cathy, which is too contrived and does not compliment the film’s otherwise offbeat approach. Funky and irreverent moments of humor are lost with a storyline that doesn’t seem to know where it wants to go or what to say. Tighter editing could’ve helped avoid some long stretches where nothing seems to happen.

The film though still has some interesting and unique scenes. I got a kick out of Stanley’s cluttered apartment and how he has to smell his food in his refrigerator to see what is still edible and for entertainment he stamps on cockroaches crawling across his floor. The part where he masturbates in a bathtub while reading a letter written by his mother is hilarious. His attempts at making a porno by getting his actress (Holly Near) good and drunk only to get her hornier than he is amusing. The naked body painting sex orgy that he has with two young nubile roommates has a nice sensual quality.

Don Johnson is excellent and the one thing that keeps this wandering film together and he can be seen totally nude from both the front and back. Hull allows for some diversion as a sheltered young lady who is initially shocked by the open sexuality around her, but eventually learns to embrace it. Native American actress Victoria Racimo is hot with her clothes on and off and reminded me a lot of 70’s adult film star Hypathia Lee. Brandon Maggart makes the most of his small bit as a gay man trying to come onto Stanley while inside a café. Michael Greer offers some edginess as Stanley’s slightly menacing friend Danny. His violent death that occurs near the end of the film and in front of his shocked mother does leave an impression, but we don’t know enough about the character for it to make much sense and just another thing put into the film without seemingly much thought.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: May 26, 1970

Runtime: 1Hour 50Minutes

Rated R

Director: Leonard Horn

Studio: MGM

Available: None at this time.

Is There Sex After Death? (1971)

is there sex after death 2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: It’s all about sex.

This is basically a compilation of vignettes all satirizing America’s new found sexual revolution and is not all that different from other similar ‘underground’ films of that period and should best be viewed as simply a relic of its era.

Some of the bits could be considered clever, but they fail to build any momentum. The one joke premise loses steam halfway through eventually making the constantly quirky insights by the constantly quirky characters tiresome and redundant. The sex and nudity, while in abundance, also become a turn-off. The majority of the participants, especially those in the nudist colony, are so old and out of shape you really wish they would have just left their clothes on.

Writer/director Alan Abel who also acts as the host and interviewer comes off best. His unblinking deadpan seriousness, even when in the middle of complete perversity, is right on target. It also features a funny interview with transvestite Holly Woodlawn, some spontaneous on the street moments and a climatic ‘Sex Olympics’. In fact if you get this on video it might be worth it to just fast forward it to that point.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: October 24, 1971

Runtime: 1Hour 42Minutes

Rated X

Director: Alan Abel

Studio: Abel-Child Productions

Available: VHS

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

kramer vs kramer

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 10 out of 10

4-Word Review: Life after wife leaves.

This is a solid drama detailing the divorce and subsequent custody battle between two young, educated and upper middle class parents (Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep).

To say that this is simply an examination of divorce and its effects on both the child and parents do not do the film justice as this is a very richly textured story that brings out the many variables that come with being a modern day parent. One of the best is the examination of Hoffman’s character’s job and how ‘moving up the corporate ladder’ can have an adverse effect on a man’s home life and his family members. In fact this is a major factor to his break-up and emotional detachment with his wife.

The film also offers a nice glimpse between father and son and the scenes showing this relationship are quite touching especially as they learn to coexist with one another after the mother leaves. Justin Henry doesn’t get enough credit for his performance as the son. Yes, he is adorable in the typical child-like way, but he also manages to create a child character that is diverse and memorable.

Hoffman gives a superior performance and in many ways it is all about him and his adjustment at playing the dual roles of being both a father and mother. He has his aggressive New Yorker persona, but you understand it and really feel for what he is going through. Even watching him frantically running around from place-to-place is interesting.

Streep is also outstanding in what is kind of an unusual role for her. Typically she plays strong-willed women with a strong on-screen presence, but here her character is rather weak and suffers from problems that are elusive, but still intriguing.

Howard Duff is solid as Hoffman’s attorney and Jane Alexander offers good support as the next-door-neighbor although her character is a bit too ordinary and could have been supplied with a few interesting quirks.

The subject itself is still quite topical and everything is kept in a real perspective with nothing getting overblown or clichéd.  Robert Benton’s direction is flawless as it pays attention to the smallest of details and makes them special.  A good example of this is the poor way the father and son try to make French toast when they first find themselves alone together and then the very efficient way they learn to make them at the end. It is also not all serious as there is a really hilarious scene involving Jobeth Williams who plays Hoffman’s new girlfriend and the unusual circumstances onto which she first meets Henry.

There are a few issues to quibble about, but they are minor. One is that you hear Hoffman and Henry peeing in the toilet a lot, but they never seem able to flush it! There is also a scene where Hoffman who is in desperate need for a job applies for one during a holiday party and when he gets it he runs out, grabs a woman he does not know and kisses her right on the lips. If he tried something like that today he would not only be fired on the spot, but have a sexual harassment lawsuit as well.

My Rating: 10 out of 10

Released: December 19, 1979

Runtime: 1Hour 45Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Robert Benton

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Instant Video