User reviews

In the years between his legendary "Night of the Living Dead" and his outbreak thriller "The Crazies", filmmaker George A. Romero was actually trying NOT to get pigeonholed as a horror director. This is one of his efforts from that era. It's not for hardcore horror fans; other than a few nightmare sequences, it barely flirts with that genre. It's more of a sometimes arty, sometimes exploitative drama about a suburban housewife named Joan Mitchell (Jan White). Rather dissatisfied with her lot in life, she begins to think about things such as extramarital sex, and the idea of dabbling in the occult.

The performances are better than one might expect for such an independent, regional production. Romero uses his script as a set-up for exploring themes such as self esteem & self expression, female oppression, and the generation gap. For a while, it's likely to cause some audience members to be regularly checking their watches, as it rambles on at too deliberate a pace. It begins to maintain interest more consistently after the one hour mark. Regarding its artistic ambitions, Romero does seem to be enjoying himself coming up with those dream sequences. And in terms of exploitative elements, there is nudity both female and male, but never very much violence or gore.

"Hungry Wives" is fairly serious, but not totally without humor. Fans of the directors' output may want to see it for completions' sake, but it's not going to be for every taste.

Six out of 10.

A thoughtful character study with supernatural tinges, misleading marketed as a straightforward horror film due to Romero's reputation, this film raises more questions than it can answer but is involving despite its leisurely pace. Certainly a more honest confrontation of suburban anomie than the likes of American Beauty, anyway, it boasts a well-modulated lead performance from Jan White, as well as arresting dream sequences and an overall well-sustained quiet tension throughout.

Not sure what the title of this film actually is. The cover says "Season of the Witch" but when the opening credits role I could have sworn it said, "Jack's Wife". WhatEVER. It is an odd film indeed.

The lead character, a woman, is having strange dreams brought on by her desire to seek some meaning in her life and to escape her awful husband who has a hot temper and sometimes abuses her, and then apologizes as if he just accidentally stepped on her foot.

She often stares blankly at other people, even at parties and when she finally discovers something that she decides to pursue she still carries that odd blank stare and grim face. She meets a woman who claims to be a witch and intrigued decides to learn more about witchcraft and to try to make things happen by casting spells. She even joins a coven, still with the same grim, static face.

She continues hoping that witchcraft will change her life but it is SHE who finally changes everything with a bang! She has finally found who she is.

Obviously, the film is about oppression and sexual frustration and breaking out of that. But does she? Or is she now a witch with the same exact problems?

Despite the fact that this film is by George Romero and it's sold as a horror film, _Season of the Witch_ (aka _Jack's Wife_ which is, in my opinion, the better title) isn't really a horror film.

Or, at the very least, it isn't a *straightforward* horror film and anyone going into this expecting Romero's typical gore and suspense will definitely be disappointed. The closest the film comes to typical horror are some wonderfully eerie sequences involving a man in a grotesque satanic-looking rubber mask (exploitatively depicted on some of the older videocassette sleeve covers for the film) trying to break into the main character's house.

What this film amounts to is the story of one woman who finds herself dissatisfied with the daily plod of her existence as a respectable wife in a respectable suburb. She feels herself aging. She's secretly bitter toward her husband and her friends. It's never really clear what she wants exactly because she doesn't seem to know herself, but she does become intrigued by a woman in the neighborhood who claims to a witch. She meets with this woman and, though she's afraid of black magic, she's inspired to explore it on her own. She goes out and buys a book on the subject and some witchcraft paraphernalia and then begins casting spells from her kitchen.

Despite the non-gory subject matter, there are some things in this film that bear the distinctive signature of Romero and his influences. There's a keen visual wit on display, particularly in some scenes involving mirrors. There are some odd hallucinatory dream sequences here that come straight from the more supernatural side of Italian horror (particularly the opening scene). Many of the scenes are ramshackle and crudely staged, but not in an altogether bad way. Rather, they almost recall a documentary. There's genuine tension (but not "horror film" tension). You don't know where scenes are going to go or what the characters are going to do or say next. You never really get inside many of the characters, but they're offbeat and watchable (particularly the young student-teacher, who's into drugs, casual sex, and some pretentious post-late 60's philosophy).

Not everything in this film works. It's badly edited. Much of the acting is weak. However, the film does have an intriguing, almost New Wave, experimental-like cadence. It's rough and full of jagged edges, but, in that respect, it's really no worse than Jean Luc-Godard at his most indulgent. Even more so than _Martin_, this is Romero's "art film". If it were a piece of music instead of a movie it would be slow, discordant and lo-fi.

This is recommended for all Romero admirers to see at least once.

It's kind of hard to believe that George A. Romero wrote and directed this film because it is very average and annoying at times and almost seems to go no where. I enjoyed the film but I wasn't by any means sitting there in amazement while I watched it. This is definitely the worst Romero film I've seen so far which I guess is a good thing for him because it isn't terrible.

The acting is good, especially the lead, Pam White. I didn't think the story was anything to rave about, it was very simple and slow. Don't get me wrong, I loved slow-paced films but this one didn't go anywhere with it's slow pacing. There were a few scenes that I really liked, but it doesn't make the whole movie great as a whole. As I said before, this film is very average.

See this movie if you're a fan of Romero but don't buy it unless you see it for under five bucks.

George Romero's second movie is not quite as successful as his classic first movie, "Night of the Living Dead." The mood, atmosphere and directing ability that Romero usually has in his movies are absent here. The cinetography is really grainy, the acting is poor and half the dialogue is garbled beyond comprehension. The story isn't too good and it's sometimes hard to tell what's going on or what the film's really about. Fortunately, Romero made many other fine films after this, proving he wasn't a one-hit-wonder. Watch Romero's "Dead" trilogy or just about any of his other films. But this is probably his weakest effort.

Romero actually had a pretty bizarre start of career when you come to think of it. After his hugely successful and groundbreaking zombie film "Night of the Living Dead", it seems like he wanted to prove that he was capable of delivering more than just shocking horror and he attempted to do romantic comedy ("There's Always Vanilla") and occult drama (this "Season of the Witch") before returning to disturbing, hysterical horror with "The Crazies". Although it certainly isn't among Romero's best films, this underrated gem of cult cinema remains an intriguing and ambitious oddity worth checking out in case you're a fan of experimental 70's cinema. It centers on the shy housewife Joan Mitchell during a turning point of her life: her daughter has a life of her own now and her husband is always too occupied with work, so Joan – under the influence of friends – turns to witchcraft and the occult, leaving her often in a trance-state where she can't tell the difference between dreams and reality. It's fascinating to see how Romero is often torn between a choice of genres: is he filming a horror picture or an art-house gem? He tends to prefer the latter, so I can easily understand why so many die-hard fans of his zombie trilogy were utterly disappointed with "Season of the Witch". It's praiseworthy how Romero successfully approaches women's situations and how he does not mock the prejudiced lives they're often living. The dialogs are cleverly written and the film's tone is genuinely obscure, but it lacks excitement and power. More negative elements: the production values (very low budgeted) look awfully dated and the script in fact is a little too talky (read: on the verge of boring). I quite liked the film yet I'm happy that it wasn't the 130 minutes director's cut I saw. I fear that version would have been way too long and dull.

"Hungry Wives" is also known as "Season of the Witch". Regardless of the name, it's a very rough early film by George Romero--and not nearly the quality of his first, and most famous film, "Night of the Living Dead". I am not sure how much of it is Romero's fault--he was a VERY young, inexperienced and poor filmmaker and the film only cost about $90,000. Plus, because Romero was so strapped for funds, it sad on the shelf for a bit because he couldn't afford to finish it! So, given its very rough heritage, it's no surprise that the movie is so very, very rough. In fact, unless you are a HUGE fan of Romero, I'd recommend you skip this one and watch one of his later horror flicks. If you do watch, don't be surprised that the editing seems very random and unprofessional. And, don't be surprised that the film is so rough and appears unfinished. Again, you need to remember that Romero was NOT in Hollywood nor did he have sufficient funds to do much better. All in all, an interesting experiment AND the film had some very good scenes--but the whole just didn't seem to work.

The similarities to "Martin" are hard for me to ignore, although I agree with the general consensus that "Martin" is the better movie. That said, unlike, say, Polanski, with his broken, neurotic subjects, Romero is "forward" enough to give us a subject- here, an almost middle-aged woman- who is variously bored, inquisitive, angry, repulsed, attracted -- and yet curiously inscrutable on a very fundamental level. That is why (as in "Martin") the ending comes rather unexpectedly, and in ways that cause us to rethink everything we learned up to that point.

This is not quite the "bored housewife" routine. Rather, Romero is giving us a view of the dissolution of the middle class as it had been known in parts of America up to that point: Good Catholic homeowners with traditional social roles confronting the upheaval of the age. And the fear, confusion and opportunity it presented are all here on display. It wears its time (early 70s) in obvious ways. But Jan White's performance is remarkably contemporary: she is steely and strangely confident through it all, even when events confuse or frighten.

This movie was boring, badly produced, the audio was terrible, the acting was amateurish, and the story line was simply ridiculous. It should have been titled; "The Season of the Sexually Frustrated, Bored, 70's Housewife".

Any "witchcraft" in the movie was limited to about 10 minutes total-- and was so off the mark, it was ludicrous. Summoning "the Devil" to do a Love spell... Puh-leeez. This is the kind of movie that gives Pagans and Witches a bad rap. Avoid at all costs!

You know people, you have to look at a movie as a stand-alone project and forget which "famous" director (etc) had a hand in it. Doesn't matter if they've made masterpieces before or after... when a movie stinks, it stinks! Use a critical and discerning eye!

I just re-watched Season of The Witch. I hadn't watched it in years. I found I had the time to analyze it 100%. Jan White playing Joan Mitchell (the lead), was too pretty and young for the role...but it worked. Why? Because her husband married her and put her on a shelf...as perhaps a trophy wife. Joan's friends are WAY too old for her. It seemed they bordered on being senior citizens, whereas Joan wasn't. No wonder she was bored. Her husband hardly paid attention to her and she had to fit in with women decades older.

Joan has a 20-ish year old daughter, Nikki, and she makes an appearance and you never see her again. We get an all too brief glimpse of the kind of dynamic they have. Nikki's friend and TA, Gregg, takes a liking to the older Joan. Joan and Gregg have a small affair. He kept referring her to Mrs. Robinson in the Graduate. You could actually feel Joan's angst in the whole film. Being bored and frustrated, the viewer hopes that she has the affair with the younger Gregg. There is an unkind scene where Gregg teases one of Joan's friends. Jan White is such a good actress you can feel her anger toward Gregg in this scene. Again, in praise of Jan White, you can see how comfortable she is with Gregg. I felt that if she ended up with Gregg, he could fulfill her. I thought she would kill him for making her have feelings of unbridled sexuality.

It takes Gregg to make Joan realize how unhappily married she is. I won't give away the ending. But, the film is a great character study. We see Joan coming apart in front of our very eyes. The witchcraft thing is secondary. The poor woman is fighting for her sanity and self esteem. Director George Romero is genius at letting the viewer FEEL. Someone said it was slow paced. YEAH...but we get to feel what Joan is feeling. That's the beauty of it. It's not a horror film!! Great movie making on the part of Jan White and George Romero. It worked for me. I think a lot of reviewers expected Night of the Living Dead results. It isn't that kind of film. More of a thinking person's study. I'm so amazed. Kudos.

3 stars for humour (although totally unintended). If you want a cheesy 70's witchcraft B-movie just for some cheap laughs at the wigs and swinging lingo, then by all means, enjoy! The overall idea of this film was pretty good, but it failed to meet the mark. The story seems lost, trying to get itself on track, but frequently gets diverted on a psychedelic trip of misdirection.

Bored and disillusioned housewives, alcoholism, the occult, female self-empowerment, the 1970's sexual revolution, bizarre dream sequences... This story is trying to be about so much, and ends up being a jumbled mess. Romero, whatever you were trying to say here, it's totally lost in cinematic translation.

I also found this film to be strikingly dated. The "hip" script comes off as silly. Unlike Romero's previous films, this dialouge seems unusually forced and artificial.

Anti-climatic. Poorly edited. Corny costumes and effects. Silly dialouge. Meandering and floundering plot. Annoying electronic soundtrack. Lack-luster acting. Cheap film, trying to be artistic, but ends up poorly made, desperate and lost in itself. I had a few laughs, but I wouldn't want to watch it again.

Note: For anyone who is a witch, it's likely that this movie won't be as offensive as most "witchcraft" movies tend to be, as it does treat the subject with more sensitivity and accuracy than I had expected.

Ranks right up there with "The Witch Who Came From the Sea" and "The Stepford Wives" in the obsolete sub-genre of 70's women's lib horror. Arguably George Romero's most unusual and underrated film, this is less a horror film than a sociopolitical bitchslapping of the male-dominated American dream. Although witchcraft does play a part in this, the focus is largely on our leading lady's middle-aged, menopausal anguish...a feeling of solitary confinement in a pseudo-sterile life with an abusive/absent husband, thankless daughter, and a circle of ingenuine, gossipy "friends".

This is a very well done low-budget film, and comes highly recommended...although rigid horror buffs may end up disappointed. 7/10

A woman (Jan White) feels kept down by her husband, and pursues witchcraft as a hobby. That has some negative consequences, as well as her new interest in adultery.

This is the first film solely written by George A. Romero and a break from most of the Latent Image crew who had made "Night of the Living Dead". Some familiar names return. Bill Hinzman appears as "the intruder" and did some lighting and photography. Master bamboo flutist Steve Gorn returns as composer. Gary Streiner, who did sound on "Night" and "Vanilla", is now a producer. And actors Robert Trow and Raymond Laine from "Vanilla" are back. Outside of the two Romero films, Trow is best known for appearing in 266(!) episodes of "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood".

The opening scene features a woman being swatted by newspaper, slapped by tree branches, and dragged on a leash into a kennel. It is very artistic, and shows early on why Hollywood Reporter called the film "a nightmarish vision of female oppression." Let us put the film in its historical context. Wicca and neopaganism began in England thanks to Gerald Gardner but really took off in America around 1970 thanks to Paul Huson's book "Mastering Witchcraft". This coincides with the rise of "second wave" feminism lead by Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. Though the themes today (2017) may seem quaint, they were hot topics in 1973.

Mike Mayo gives the film a solid three out of four, the most complimentary review I am aware of. Yet, his write-up raises questions of his sincerity. He says the film "had more social relevance than it does now", is "too-talky" and is "not nearly as suspenseful or engrossing" as "Martin" overall. This gives the impression he wants to like it as a Romero fan, but cannot fully commit himself. Had Mayo watched it, not knowing Romero was involved, would he have been so rewarding?

The film's original title "Jack's Wife" succinctly captured the essence of the film, being about a woman who was not seen as her own person. The later and more common title is "Season the Witch", which plays up the very limited horror aspect and probably disappointed many expecting a supernatural tale. (I originally saw it at a horror marathon, which was unfortunate.) Yet another title was "Hungry Wives", suggesting a sexploitation film, which this absolutely is not.

The movie was originally released by Jack Harris (best known for "The Blob"), shortly after Harris distributed John Landis' debut "Schlock". Harris also distributed John Carpenter's debut "Dark Star" (1974). While his creation of "The Blob" is appropriately celebrated, perhaps Harris deserves even more praise for aiding the careers of not one, but three masters of horror!

The Arrow Blu-ray provides multiple cuts of the film, but its best new feature is an hour-long conversation between Romero and Guillermo del Toro. Of course, this dialogue is not strictly about "Season of the Witch". But that is what makes it so great, because few filmmakers have the love for genre cinema that del Toro goes, and he can get to the heart of Romero's visions.

So the witchcraft is a bit more Wicca for tv, but I enjoy this depiction versus the more sensationalist tendency of film. The subtext of the 1970's awaking feminism is display well using witchcraft as means for the main character to explore her being and power. Somewhat sedate in its presentation, but this was captivating for me nonetheless. Low budget but competently done by Romero.

George Romero is a very talented filmmaker and I wanted to take something away from this movie. I really did. I even rented it twice more after my initial viewing, hoping I'd see something that I missed the first time. No, I wasn't anticipating a straight horror film; I was ready to accept "Hungry Wives" on its own terms. But I could never figure out what this film was about--and neither could Romero, unfortunately. After the enormous success of "Night of the Living Dead" he wanted to avoid being stereotyped as a horror director, but both of his post-"Night" attempts to branch out ("There's Always Vanilla" and this film) were unqualified duds, and Romero returned to the horror genre shortly thereafter with "The Crazies". While it's obvious from the cinematography and the menacing atmosphere of certain scenes that a genuine talent was at work here, the end result was a royal mess. "Hungry Wives" is confusing, badly dated, and full of surrealistically unsympathetic characters (though Jan White had some charisma as 'Joan'). Sorry, George :(

Surprisingly, being at the helm of a cultural earthquake like "Night of the Living Dead" doesn't automatically afford you endless resources, as the technical shortcomings of this film are immediately apparent. That and the vintage element make for a rather strange viewing, though many of the sounds and effects have a very unique minimalist appeal. While hardly a horror, the story is an interesting meditation on aging, with a refreshingly middle aged protagonist using witchcraft to break out of her fenced in reality. It occasionally drags, with most of the action and surreal elements played as dream sequences, but with a little patience and forgiveness for the lo-fi, it's not without it's charms.

"Season of the Witch" is a little scene telemovie from Mr Living Dead himself, George Romero's early career.

Romero's films generally had a social conscience that people often miss, preferring to think of them as moronic gorefests. "Night of the Living Dead" called to mind a lynch mob with the crowd of zombies after the African-American hero (largely unseen in the Sixties), and who could forget the devastating ending?

"Season of the Witch" seems like his take on feminism, which was then in its second wave - "The Female Eunuch" came out a couple of years beforehand. The protagonist is a bored and neglected housewife who flirts with the occult, which is presented like an adulterous relationship. A friend introduces her to a "witch", who gives tarot card readings, and explains how she used to be sworn to secrecy - but in "today's age, anything goes". It sounds very much like the so-called "sexual revolution" of the sixties, in horror movie terms.

You can tell TV movies, especially older ones, by the amateurish way they are photographed and dialogued. Often the camera seems too close, and cuts are sometimes off-putting because the framing doesn't seem right. You can also sometimes catch the actors' lips moving out of sync with the sound. I wonder why this is? It's not what you would expect from a guy whose last movie changed the world. Perhaps the TV station this was filmed for couldn't pay for a decent director of photography, or sound technician.

Frustrated with her suburban lifestyle, the protagonist fully embraces witchcraft. The story only really becomes interesting at this point, and then only momentarily.

"Season of the Witch" is pretty dull and featureless. They could have made the protagonist interesting, but they really didn't. It's status as an unseen and unheard of movie in Romero's filmography is deserved. Don't waste your time unless you're a completist.

I would certainly take issue with the previous comment, written without much proper discussion of the film. It did not at all bore me; maybe its pace was slow, but is this inherently a bad thing? The mood was sustained and developed well by this low-key, languid film-making. The music and photography were truly absorbing. The music was wonderfully oddball, disorientating and varied. The photography is very vivid and makes use of opaque colours very effectively. The sound quality - particularly for some dialogue - of the "print" I watched was poor, but that's no fault, I suspect, of Romero.

There is a great beginning, and a perhaps not so great a conclusion; the first scenes are wonderfully vivid and dreamy, with editing used expertly. The ending however, could be said to be abrupt, with issues and characters left unresolved. The witchcraft aspect does work, and is a telling part of White's character's development throughout the film. The acting and writing of the film's characters is indeed not the greatest I have yet seen, but it's not bad at all. The obscure Jan White, as the jaded, ageing (well, around 40 it appears) housewife, is very good in the role, exuding an effective screen presence. The previous commentator brands the actress "ugly"? I don't see how this is truly relevant, but for the record, Ms White was certainly nothing of the sort. Particularly late on, around about the witchcraft sequences, she is oddly resplendent. The other actors were generally of a standard that certainly was not notably bad, but was not notably great either; they were passable enough. Ray Laine's hippy character is perhaps too blatant a generalized representative of the counter-culture, but for the plot it plays well, with the scene between Laine, White, her daughter and some other, older housewife downright amusing in many ways.

While hardly "Brass Eye" in its incisiveness, this film's satire - of both American middle-class suburbia and the '60s/'70s counter-culture - is justified and largely well achieved. I have to say from watching Romero's debut, "The Night of the Living Dead" and this film, he has some film-making ability. Particularly in the avenue of creating an atmosphere of unease and malaise. This is not truly a horror film, without the typical trappings. Any monster, is at best vaguely implicit, or more rightly a metaphor in Joan's dreams, the blood on show is minimal.

While I thought this film did not deliver on all the promise it had, I greatly enjoyed it. A refreshingly odd film, one that deserves much higher than a misguided 4.7/10 rating, albeit only for 76 voters.

Rating:- ****/*****

This seems to be largely forgotten and ignored, but I think it's something of a gem from George A. Romero's early career. The marketing had no idea how to sell it, though, leaning heavily into horror elements that are barely there. The film isn't a horror exercise in any meaningful sense. It's mostly just a character portrait of a bored suburban wife and mother, looking for some kicks and going down a rabbit hole of witchcraft to find some meaning in her life. Having watched the work of Pier Paolo Pasolini so recently, it was interesting to see some parallels about the meaninglessness of the lives of the materialist bourgeois from a Pittsburgh point of view.

That wife and mother is Joan Mitchell (Jan White), wife to Jack (Bill Thunhurst), and mother to Nikki (Joedda McClain). Jack works away from home, travelling extensively, and Nikki is college-aged, leading her own life. That leaves Joan alone most days, consumed by her dreams, and wayward in which direction not take her life. After attending a party with her friend Shirley (Ann Muffly), they go to see a witch, Marion (Virginia Greenwald) who gives Shirley a tarot reading while Joan peruses some of the woman's books about how to become a witch. Intrigued, despite her Catholic background, Joan dances around the idea rhetorically on the drive back home where she discovers that Nikki has a guest, Gregg (Ray Laine). What follows is a remarkably tense scene as Gregg gets Shirley to open up by taking a regular tobacco cigarette, tearing off the filter, and twisting the ends to look like a joint. She has a complete freak out because she thinks she's getting high where she reveals that she wants to live a new life after having sacrificed her life to her family for so long.

And that points to the interesting central point of the film. It's not about becoming a witch. It's about finding meaning in something even if its fake. It's a portrait of people with no meaning in their lives (living materialist lives despite Joan's one-line reference to her being Catholic) and searching out for purpose wherever they can get it. Joan doesn't need to believe in witchcraft, she asserts in the beginning. She just needs to go through the motions to get meaning, like Shirley smoking a fake joint. It's her justification for playacting witchcraft for the rest of the movie...except she doesn't just playact, at least in her own mind. There's an argument both ways as to whether she ends up gaining magical powers, but I lean heavily towards no because her magic doesn't actually seem to, you know, work.

Now, I need to talk about the editing. It's obvious that Romero is much more concerned with making his films in the editing bay than pre-planning with scripts and rehearsals. So much of these early films are built through montage, and Romero leans heavily into it from the opening frame. Joan has a series of dreams throughout the film, and the film begins with one. Romero drops the audience into this surreal view of Joan following Jack through a wooded area with a random baby along the path. There's even a fake-out to make the audience think it's over, when it just goes another level deeper. These dreams keep popping up throughout the film, being vague and never quite explicit in intent. Instead, Romero chooses to use them to help flesh out the emotional reality that Joan is in with a repeated motif of a masked burglar trying to break into her house with her finding her ability to fight back increasingly as the movie goes on and she gets deeper into her witchcraft.

An affair begins. She starts doing incantations. Does she actually drag Gregg to her house with magic? Or was it the direct phone call to him inviting him over that did it (see why I don't think the magic is real?)? Well, either way, she attributes it to the witchcraft, whether that's because it's magic or just because it makes her feel more powerful (the whole following through on the motions but getting what she needs out of it business). And that's where I find the film interesting. It's a character study of a woman living a life without meaning finding meaning in a place where she probably shouldn't. The movie doesn't take a heavy-handed approach to either supporting or defaming her for the choice, choosing instead to merely portray it subjectively from her point of view. However, the whole thing does lead to a series of events that ends in tragedy that she never quite feels bad about. There's obviously something of a monster in her.

The film predates the Satanic panic by almost a decade, so I wonder if it might have played better being made in the early 80s rather than the early 70s. That might have helped give it some marketability that this less sensational film it actually is possibly needed in order to make itself known in the marketplace. It's not really a horror film. It has Romero's strong eye and strong sense of editing to create tension, but it's ultimately a character portrait. I think it's unfairly regarded today. I did watch the longer restored cut at 104 minutes, though. It only existed in a shorter 89 minute cut for a long time (having been cut down by more than half an hour by distributors), so I have to include that in my estimation for how the whole thing gets viewed.

That 104 minute cut, though, is solidly good. It's not what one would expect from Romero, but I think it shows that Romero was far more than just the zombie guy. He had interesting directions he could have gone, but I'm not naïve enough to think that he ever had a chance. The only way he was going to get financing after a certain point was zombie movies specifically and horror films generally. This more interesting path wasn't going to last for long.

This is nearly an auteur film for George Romero, acting as director, editor, cinematographer and screenwriter (with his wife producing). Inspired by the occult and feminism, two major movements of the early 70s that play nicely together, the film was shot with a small crew for $100,000 (originally budgeted for a quarter million).

The film had issues finding distribution, with several of them demanding hard core scenes. Jack H. Harris (producer of The Blob, Equinox, Eyes of Laura Mars and Dark Star) finally distributed it as Hungry Wives, cutting nearly 41 minutes from the films running time (the version on the Anchor Bay DVD is still missing 26 minutes, which are presumably lost forever as the original film negative and director's cut are thought to be gone forever).

The film has the feel of pornography with none of the payoff, something noticed by critics. Others consider it a film that's unsure of its approach — indeed, how do you follow up a film like Night of the Living Dead which totally nails it and reinvents the horror genre without doing more horror? Romero's efforts in this period feel like avoidance — yet knowing that the grave (slumming it in the horror genre) beckons.

Joan Mitchell is Jack's wife, introduced to us as walking through the woods that look eerily similar to the Evans City gravesite that opens Night of the Living Dead. Together, they live in the Forest Hills suburb of Pittsburgh (this movie is so yinzer that it thanks Foodland in the opening credits) with Nikki, their 19-year-old daughter. Much like many of the characters of Romero, they're Catholic and find their faith ill-equipped for the changes that the end of the 20th century brings to them.

Read more at http://bit.ly/2yx7Om2