hammer4

My rating is just moderately positive, which generally means there are positives and negatives, which cancel each other out to an extent.

Positives: 1: It's an original and rather offbeat premise. So many movies might as well show "retread" in their opening credits. But this isn't one of them.

2: The cast and performances are generally good, if not exceptional. In a sense the filmakers were putting themselves in a spot by making the two teenage girls the focal point which requires them to essentially carry the film. As an aside, I'm guessing that Peter Sellers wasn't exactly thrilled at being relegated to a supporting player.

I'll acknowledge that most viewers can't really identify with the Val and Marian characters and at times they do come across as somewhat grating. Overall however, my feeling is that Tippy Walker and Merrie Spaeth are appealing and largely successful in their roles. Otherwise, the film would've been a disaster.

3: The film has a good "look" with interesting NYC locations, well captured.

Negatives: 1: I've already touched on some of them in the Positives section. I think many viewers expected more from Peter Sellers, literally more screen time with a more fleshed out character. What is in the film is, in my opinion, not particularly interesting or entertaining.

2: I think the film would have been better served by eliminating the soap operaish sideplot involving Val's dysfunctional family relationship. I really feel it belongs in a different film altogether and seems tacked on here to ultimately add some sentimentality.

After all is said and done I still find the movie at least somewhat entertaining and enjoyable.

In my opinion this film contains a fundamental flaw that skews its basic premise. The Stanwyck character instantly enraptures men to the point that they want to have sex with her immediately-and frequently in semi public places:a railroad car, a business office and a restroom. In the first place, Stanwyck is certainly no raving voluptuous beauty, and even if she were it's still rather preposterous to presume that men could become so addled in her presence. It's almost as if some magic aphrodisiac dust gets sprinkled on men when she smiles at them.

Just so there's no confusion, if this film were released today it would probably be rated PG. The sex isn't depicted, but strongly implied so essentially it all takes place off camera. Perhaps the most daring segment (for the times) is a brief moment where a speakeasy patron hugs Ms Stanwyck's fully clothed torso and appears to brush up against the bottom of her breasts. The only skin on display is when she wears a gown that bares part of her back.

The fundamental premise is tawdry and perhaps was singled out as a prima facie example of what Hollywood was trying to eliminate by enforcement of the Hays/Breen Code. However, the central character is actually presented somewhat sympathetically. The film strongly implies that she was forced into prostitution at age 14, and by her FATHER!! One could say that sex and men are the only things she knows. Why not try to obtain substantial monetary rewards in the process? As the Nietzschean philosopher cobbler character advises her:instead of being exploited, become the exploiter.

While not a good film it's worth seeing once as a genuine curio.

My review is based on the Criterion Collection DVD released in 2016. The two DVD set includes commentary by Roger Ebert, who wrote the screenplay and co-wrote the story with director Russ Meyer. He contends that the filmmakers' intentions, mainly consisting of Meyer and himself, were to create nothing less than an exploitation, satire, horror, rock musical. This may or may not have been the actual original intentions. Mr. Ebert's comments were recorded some 34 – 37 years after this film was produced. Therefore due to the passage of time alone I feel one must take his comments with the proverbial grain of salt. Attempting to make a successful picture combining all of these elements would be a daunting task indeed, for anyone. At any rate, regardless of what the intentions may have been one can only assess the final result; that is, what actually appears on the screen. I do not find a genuine or effective satire, horror picture or musical. I feel the exploitation elements, which were probably the easiest to bring to the fore especially in view of Meyer's film experiences, were moderately successful during relatively small portions of the film's 109 minute length.

As at least one other reviewer has pointed out, merely presenting clichéd, hackneyed or ludicrously exaggerated and over-the-top situations does not constitute legitimate satire. The latter requires wit, intelligence, intuitiveness, as well as a certain degree of restraint and subtlety. Meyer's general approach is ham-fisted; the equivalent of hitting the viewer's head several times with a sledgehammer

The basic plot element was of course a well-worn cliché even when this movie was filmed back in 1969-1970. Three young and very attractive women leave their small town existence to seek fame and fortune as aspiring rock musicians in Los Angeles, accompanied by their male manager who is also the boyfriend of the lead singer. The central characters are depicted as relative innocents at the beginning but in no time they succumb to or are overwhelmed by the moral turpitude which is L. A. Their encounters or relationships with numerous morally corrupt, depraved and or insane characters provides the essence of the film. Naturally a fair amount of casual sex with attendant nudity and liberal drug use is depicted. In retrospect one can see this film as very much of its time: when Hollywood was trying to "get with it" so to speak. There really were no limits as far as what could be depicted on screen once the rating system was implemented in 1968, provided the studio was willing to acquiesce to an X rating, as 20th Century Fox did in this instance. On the other hand, those that are expecting a very raunchy skin fest will probably be greatly disappointed. By present standards the nudity is fairly limited. For the most part it consists of a number of very brief glimpses of female breasts. A lot of this has to do with Meyer's frequent quick cutting editing style. There is nothing that could truly be considered sexually explicit or graphic, however there are several doses of very graphic, gratuitous and repugnant violence towards the end. The latter sequence almost seems to be tacked on from another film and is presumably yet another attempt to "shock" the typical viewer of 1970.

Had the filmmakers chosen to let the relatively light and comedic sexual exploitation elements of the film to predominate, I feel they would have been much more successful insofar as producing an enjoyable film. Instead they felt the need to clumsily tack on some sort of half baked moral message at the very end ludicrously intoned by a voice-over narrator. My initial impression was that this was intended as satire but Ebert's comments indicate that it actually represented Russ Meyer's sincere sentiments.

I will say that this film, while a big failure, would be worth seeing at least once as a curio. It does look good; it's generally well photographed with fine color. I don't know if the film was restored for DVD release but the quality is quite good especially for a film this old. There's no question that Meyer has a strong and unique visual style that is well represented here. The amount of female pulchritude on display is considerable. The lead performers don't display much in the way of acting ability and none of them went on to have successful careers. In fairness to the performers the characters they portray are not exactly well developed.