Little Cigars

A gangsters former mistress (Angel Tompkins) is on the run from him after robbing him. She falls in with a midget acting group (called Little Cigars) who are also robbers. She teams up with them and starts falling for the head of the group (Billy Curtis).

As you can see this is an odd film---even for American International Pictures (AIP). In many ways this is an fun but ordinary caper film--the dialogue and plot would not be out of place in any generic film. It's just this is done with midgets. You think that might play with that more but they don't. There is some pretty explicit sex talk for a PG film and it's pretty obvious that Tompkins is sleeping with Curtis. And get a load of the very obvious sexual animation during the opening credits! The acting is just OK but Tompkins is pretty good.

All in all a strange film. It is fun and it moves very quickly but why have midgets in it and not use that aspect at all? Still it was enjoyable. I give it an 8.

There are some hilarious moments in this comedy caper about a group of circus midgets who rob banks and casinos. Billy Curtis delivers some great lines. Angel Tompkins puts in a good performance as a kind of moll for the midgets. I first saw this film while on board a US Navy ship. It was the ships evening movie and throughout the showing hilarious roaring could be heard from all the compartments on board that had TV sets in them.

I've been reading Quentin Tarantino's book "Cinema Speculation". He mentions a few movies that not only I haven't seen but that I have never even heard of. "Little Cigars" is one of those movies. Since QT mentioned the movie and it starred Angel Tompkins (who delivered a brief but memorable nude scene in "Chapter 2: Walking Tall"), I figured I'd give it a go. It's an okay watch. The cast is fine and Tompkins does look good. The cast members do a good job because they all play it straight. The movie, however, needed a better script. How many times can you show the gang doing robberies? Apparently a bunch. That's what most of the movie is. It gets pretty redundant after a while. I'm not going to say that "Little Cigars" is a good movie but I will say it's a lot better than "The Terror of Tiny Town".

Little Cigars (1973)

** (out of 4)

Mildly entertaining, if 100% bizarre, film from AIP has a gangster's moll (Angel Tompkins) leaving his controlling arms and hooking up with a gang of midgets. The midgets are involved in a small circus but the woman turns them into bigger criminals with a string of robberies. LITTLE CIGARS will probably entertain those who like off the wall material but there's no question that the overall film is incredibly uneven. The film never seems to know if it wants to be kid friendly fun stuff or if it wants to be a tad bit darker and aimed for adults. The strange mix just makes for an uneven film and this here is what really kills things. The kinder side of the picture is innocent enough as the robberies are all done in good taste and none of them feature anything too graphic to the point where you couldn't show the film to kids. However, the darker side of the picture deals with a lot of sexual innuendo between the moll and the midgets, which is somewhat strange to watch. There's also a twist at the end, which leads to an ending that I won't spoil but this too is a lot darker than the rest of the film. These two elements just keep going back and forth and I really wish the filmmakers had selected one and just went all out with it. Still, there are some good things here that make the film worth viewing. The biggest is the performance of Tompkins who really comes off well here. The sexuality of her character is something the actress pulls off with no problems and there wasn't a single time where I didn't believe her in the part. Billy Curtis is also good as the leader of the midgets and I really enjoyed the fire and passion he brought to the character. The rest of the midget actors all fit their roles just fine and certainly help keep the film moving.

This movie doesn't fit neatly into any category. It has elements of comedy, including slapstick, puns, sexual innuendo, and "witty" lines, but also contains foul language, brutal murders, robberies and assaults. Added to this lack of focus is terrible pacing. Some of this is the fault of the editor as he holds to long on a close-up of a character who has just said a "funny" line, but those extended pauses for laughs are present even when the scene does not cut away. I suppose the humor of the movie was supposed to derive from the surprise of seeing little people who are as nasty and cruel as everyone else. Even in 1972, this would not have surprised many people. This would probably have been a lot funnier if made a few years after the Wizard of Oz. The plot is nothing more than a series of "capers" that demonstrate the many clever ways you can smuggle a bunch of midgets into an establishment you are planning to rob. There's no indication of how or why this group of con artists suddenly become brutal armed robbers. There is nothing of the con artist subtlety in their later capers. What dramatic tension there is comes from trying to decide if Cleo (Angel Tompkins) really cares for Slick, or is just stringing him along. Since neither of these characters is sympathetic, it's hard to care to much about this.