Stanley

Tim Ochopee (Chris Robinson), an embittered Vietnam veteran of Native American descent, retreats from society into the Florida Everglades and becomes inseparable companions with a pet rattlesnake (Stanley)... a pet he teaches to kill on command.

A happy light rock soundtrack about saving trees opens the film, giving it a hippie nature vibe that is hard to reconcile with the actual picture (though, I guess, in some ways it's a pro-snake and anti-hunting film).

At 106 minutes, it runs a bit long, but is oddly enjoyable. That's 106 minutes on the Mill Creek disc. From what I hear, the BCI disc is only 96 minutes and some versions are only 92. I cannot tell you what is cut on each one.

Gloria the dancer (Marcie Knight) says, "any kind of love is better than any kind of hate", echoing the Indian warning that Tim's hatred is a cancer on his soul. I think that must be the theme, though it's really hard to say for sure.

I suppose this film could be scary if you're terrified of snakes, but they aren't really presented in a scary manner. The acting is good, besides over-acting Susie Thomkins (Susan Carroll) ruining an otherwise talented cast. Oh, and the drunk guy in the burlesque house provided the ten seconds of comic relief I needed.

This film isn't terrible. In fact, I found myself staring at the screen quite a bit. I suspect it would be a good flick for a small group of friends and some beers, maybe Milwaukee's Best Ice.

Crap! Another bad killer snake movie. Actually, this movie is pretty much just "Willard" with snakes instead of rats. Chris Robinson plays a Vietnam Vet and a Seminole Indian (neither very convincingly) whose only friends are poisonous snakes. He uses these "friends" to take revenge on greedy developer and snakeskin dealer (Alex Rocco, who appeared in "The Godfather" the same year)who was also conveniently responsible for the death of his father, and on a skanky stripper who bites the heads off of snakes as part of her act (because, of course, THAT'S a real turn-on).

There are several problems with this movie. First, it is somewhat believable that rats might have affection for humans and do their bidding, but it is far less believable that snakes would (and the character here isn't given any special psychic powers over them a la Jennifer Connelly in "Phenomenon"). Second, poisonous snakes aren't very good at attacking people. Even when confronted with a large number of poisonous snakes, all the victims would have to do is run away--it's not like snakes are going to chase you. (The most ridiculous scene has Rocco's character attacked in his swimming pool by dozens of water moccasins). The movie really goes off the rails at the end though when Robinson suddenly falls in love with and kidnaps Rocco's sexy, bare-midriffed blonde daughter. After she spurns him, he tries to get the snakes to bite her, but they refuse, so he reacts in an unintentionally hilarious "Willard"-esque fashion and finally gets his just desserts.

On the plus side this movie was directed by Willam Grefe who would go on to do equally ridiculous but much more entertaining movies like "Impulse" with William Shatner. It's also certainly no worse than many other killer snake movies-"Jennifer, "Rattlers" , "Spasms", "Venom", or more recent CGI crap like "Boa", "Python" and "Anaconda". Maybe filmmakers should just give up on these killer snake movies.

Stanley is a rattlesnake ,the companion of Tim ,a Native American Vietnam veteran who lives in seclusion in the Everglades where he ekes out a precarious existence .He clashes with a local petty crime lord who wants to kill as many snakes as possible in order to turn their skins into boots ,belts , purses -anything in short that will turn a quick profit .Stanley's brood of baby rattlers are slaughtered and Tim strikes back by using the snake as his instrument of revenge even going so far as to kidnap his rival's teenage daughter an event which precipitates a bloody and fiery climax This is dreadful on every level and in every department -the acting is wooden ,the script simplistic and the pace funereal Not recommendable even to 70's monster movie completists or the most undemanding of spectators.

I'll say this, 'Stanley' makes no bones about the clear influence it takes from 1971's 'Willard' - different animal, much the same premise. Though decidedly heavy-handed, I appreciate how this lays out all the iniquities for which human protagonist Tim and reptilian protagonist Stanley will seek vengeance. "Themes" isn't quite the right word, but in addition to environmentalism and the destruction of and broad disregard for wildlife, the feature speaks more indirectly to racism, sexism, exploitation, and the various other evils that humans visit upon one another, including old-fashioned capitalist greed. On the other hand, while the dialogue, scene writing, and acting lay it on rather thick, the plot is rather lackadaisical about going anywhere. I suppose that's nothing unusual or unexpected when it comes to second- or third-rate genre flicks, but still this somewhat confounds for how meagerly it proceeds. Whether one wishes to call this a "horror flick" or a "thriller," neither label meaningfully applies in reality. Given the most cheeky and over the top bits one could also just say it's a "comedy" and be done with it, but that label never particularly bears fruit, either.

Don't get me wrong, the picture can boast some splendid, delightful ideas one way or another. Writer Gary Crutcher gives us a complete narrative, and at least in concept the rest of the screenplay is fine. Though unquestionably overwrought, star Chris Robinson gives a modestly appreciable performance. Despite the very low-budget, low-grade nature of the production, I recognize the work that everyone involved turned in, including great filming locations and swell sets. A low budget doesn't excuse such weak-kneed direction, however, nor noncommittal writing, nor acting that's consistently either overcooked or underwhelming, but scarcely ever earnest. With more care this could have actually been a thriller, a horror flick, or a thriller-comedy or a horror-comedy. Instead 'Stanley just kind of "is" in the most rudimentary sense. The promise of the premise has been fulfilled, but in the least interesting way it could have been. Furthermore - especially given the credits for the movie, or the lack thereof, I don't think there were any specific special effects created, which can only mean that there was some abject animal cruelty employed to capture a few select shots. And there's no excuse for that, either.

I don't think this is altogether rotten. All the potential is right there for the taking, and the last twenty minutes are probably the strongest part of all. Yet as both director and producer William Grefé goes about the project in pretty much all the wrong ways, and this is not nearly the film that it might have been. Whether it was for lack of skill or lack of will, no lack of bills can account for the deficiencies to present. I had high hopes when I sat to watch, but let's be honest, I should have known better. Leave this for those who are very curious or very bored on a lazy day; otherwise, there's no real need to check out 'Stanley.'

If your looking to be scared, or seriously enjoy a movie, don't watch this. But... if you want to bust a gut laughing, I highly suggest "Stanley". Full of cheesy movie effects, hilarious dialog, and obvious plot holes, it will crack you up! At least, it did me. The acting is bearable and at least it tries to convey a good message, so thats the only reason I gave it 1 star. Though the beginning is actually o.k., boring, but o.k., eventually the cheesiness mounts to be ridiculous, and it is impossible to resist laughing. I have watched this 20 times at least, and we crack up more and more every time! So gather up some friends, get some popcorn, and get ready to laugh your butt off!