Amazonen des Urwalds

I can't believe nobody's seen this movie. Not even 5 votes registered. This is a real cult classic, guys. Dinosaurs, women running around in fur bikinis, catfights; it has it all. Not a whole lot of talent, mind you, but that's not what we're looking for in exploitation, is it? The plot? Who cares. It's simple enough to follow with the sound off. Just sit back, put some heavy tunes on, and enjoy the action.

I will be honest.The only reason I bought this DVD was to see more (in every sense of the word) of Laurette Luez.She first caught my attention in the 1950 film "D.O.A." when I wished she could have had a more substantial part.In "D.O.A". I was struck by Laurette's exotic looks and when I looked up her biography on IMDb.com, it did not surprise me that she was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.I have a serious weakness for beautiful 1940s film actresses with raven black hair.I have every film Jennifer Jones ever made as well as examples of Ava Gardner, Margaret Lockwood, Patricia Medina and Vivien Leigh; not that I am putting Laurette Luez on a par with those film goddesses but as said by a reviewer above she meets my need for agreeable "eye candy".

During the film I wondered what Professor Leakey (the famous British anthropologist whose family live in South Africa) would have made or said of the plot!The ladies looked like they had just come out of a Hollywood beauty salon, which indeed they had i.e. the film studio's make-up dept.Tigers are only found in India.Where were the 9 foot giant's mother & father, did they have any other giant children?The giant (I bet he was a cute baby), reminded me of a latter day Richard (Jaws) Kiel.The pterodactyl was extinct by the time man evolved onto this planet.Unfortunately film companies/producers have a stubborn obsession with evolution and insist man must do battle with prehistoric monsters as it looks good on film and is what audiences want.That's the problem with playing chess like I do, it makes you think too logically! But of course the real reason people (mainly heterosexual men) would watch films like these is to see scantily clad beautiful stone age women ministering to the capricious urges of their stone age men folk and I am including myself in that category.There was some S&M scenes in "Prehistoric Women" which will appeal to men of that disposition and persuasion.Again the logical side of my brain kicked in, with all that stone age muscle around, why did the men meekly submit themselves to be held captive by those glamorous primitive women?.Could it be that they wanted to be held by them as their prisoners? Films like this trigger prehistoric urges in all of us.I noticed when I started to pen my review that IMDb.com only rated it 2.7/10.That seemed a little harsh for the entertainment factor alone, so I scored it 4/10.

If you ever wondered how the human race first came up with the idea of fire and cooked dinners then this may be the movie for you. Over the course of this little adventure involving prehistoric women and dreamboat guys, both these incredibly important discoveries are made. Although it's interesting to note that these enormous human advances were evidently uncovered only after the discovery of beauty products.

Prehistoric Women is, naturally, camp nonsense of the first order. And it certainly knows it is as well. To ensure some, ah, authenticity these primitive characters only speak in a series of grunts. Events are explained to us by an ever-helpful voice-over man, who often simply describes what we can already see. And what we see includes an exciting fight between a caveman and a small cat…I mean dangerous panther, a girl-on-girl cat fight, an attack by a pterodactyl and, best of all, the fiery demise of a marauding, evil giant. This 50's exploitation flick is generally quite amusing but not really entertaining enough to be fully recommended. It's goofy enough to be quite likable though, although a better example of this kind of thing is The Wild Women of Wongo (1958).

Comparable, I think, to Wiesmuller's Tarzan flicks, Prehistoric Women is honestly kind of good. The voice over, done documentary style, helps. The segments done with stuffed animals are hilarious by todays standards. Its like Tarzan wrestles Lavern and Shirley's BooBoo kitty. The prehistoric women? Champions of women's liberation and really pretty both at the same time. The photography? Decent given what they had to work with back then. The plot? Hey, there actually IS one. Even a sub plot. Characters? They function. Especially the nine foot tall rampaging giant, who is so obviously misunderstood. I'm kidding. But I'm NOT kidding when I say that if you like Tarzan style flicks from that era you'll enjoy Prehistoric Women.

By junking at least twenty minutes of extraneous footage (including two totally boring dance sequences that are spun out to excruciating length), this little effort would make a passable feature for those of us who enjoy leg shows (if nothing else). It's true the fights with the giant and the pterodactyl are mildly effective, but the story, acting and production values are so lacking in quality that connoisseurs will find the whole movie a chore to sit through.

It's startling to find one of Paramount's top photographers, Lionel Lindon (later to win numerous awards for Around the World in 80 Days), working on this cheap-jack Poverty Row independent—and contributing such below-par work at that. Yes, all the shots are in focus, but that is the responsibility of the camera operator and focus puller. The director of photography directs the lighting, and just about all of the many night scenes are so badly under-lit, you can hardly make out what's happening!