Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

jellopuke Fantastic encapsulation of the Russ Meyer style with an over the top story, hilarious satire, and great songs! Super fun and tremendous to watch again and again.

hammer4 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 sledgehammerThe 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.

JasparLamarCrabb Yeah...it's atrocious, but immensely watchable. One sits there dumbfounded trying to determine what exactly Russ Meyer's intentions were. Was he really trying to butcher the memory of Jacqueline Susann's sleazy VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (which in itself was nerve-numbingly bad) or was the soft core king simply making another of his lame-brained un-erotic erotic epics, albeit one with a rather large budget. In any event, what's here is so goofy and so hyperactive that you can't help but enjoy it. The acting is lousy all around and the editing is done with a dull razor. When Meyer isn't using endless dissolves over endless montages, his camera appears to be on a broken dolly. The script is credited to Roger Ebert, which is even more perplexing as he's become so well known (rightly so) as such a wonderful writer. His script here is a square's version of a dirty movie. Marcia McBroom, Dolly Read, and Cynthia Myers play the leads...rock stars of the Josie & the Pussycats ilk. They're awful. The colorful supporting cast includes Michael Blodgett, Edy Williams, Erica Gavin, and Phyllis Davis.

jimrin ...I think I would have to blame the script more for my lack of interest in this movie. It seems it was intended as a parody of how conservatives view Hollywood. I saw at least one review refer this to the Reefer Madness of the 70s. The difference though is that Reefer Madness was intended to be a serious movie. In this case, even as a parody, to the group who would have such a view about Hollywood, it actually reinforces those views. Perhaps a much better parody would be to include those type of people who have such views in the movie to actually show how those people are being hypocritical or wrong about their views. As the movie stands, you have no empathy for the characters who all turn out to be selfish (well, at least, I am hoping that most people out there have little empathy for the characters)... In my view, for a movie to be successful, you have to have empathy with the protagonist(s). The campiness stylishness is great (if you enjoy that type of thing), but to me, the story and characters provided little interest.