← Back to Reviews
in
It's Russ Meyer time once again! And fans of the late Roger Ebert may already know that Ebert wrote couple of screenplays for Meyer, with this being one of them. I'm also captivated by the life of Edy Williams (pictured below) too, because anyone who shows up to the Oscars the way she did has some balls of steel, and this is often cited as one of her best performances. This film also marks the film début of Pam Grier (albeit as an extra, pictured below). So it is a film that has a lot of history behind it, so I decided to quickly watch it.
The plot follows the rock band, The Kelly Affair, that consists of members Kelly (Dolly Read), Casey (Cynthia Myers), and Petronella aka. 'Pet' (Marcia McBroom) who travel to the West Coast in order to claim a portion of Kelly's aunt's inheritance (Phyllis Davis) as well as to advance their careers. But upon their arrival, all they find is sleaze and depravity.
Positives
I've never been a fan of music prior to the 1980s but the music on offer here was actually really good, had they been a real band, I'd happily purchase some of their records. Also, since the 70s were before my time, it was interesting to examine the conventions and lifestyles of the famous within this time frame. Nevertheless though, I don't watch films to teach me history and to listen to music, I go to Wikipedia and Youtube for those.
The acting was pretty okay too, considering this was the only substantial role that most of the cast undertook in their careers. I did really enjoy Edy Williams however, she was the only one who actually made me laugh in the entire film, and considering this is meant to be a comedy, she fulfilled her purpose there. However, the husky voice she employed and her extended gazes of intent emphasised her sexual allure and it was easy to see why some of the male characters were infatuated by her. However, when you look at Edy in real life, you'll probably realise that her character doesn't differentiate too much from her role here, so I don't feel she was acting in this to a certain degree, she was simply playing an exaggerated version of herself!
Negatives
I'm a fan of Roger Ebert, and I fully admire his dedication and devotion to films... but sadly, the writing here was all over the place. It tries to be too many things at once, and it just gets confusing and perplexing. It attempts to be a comedy, romance, drama, satire, action film all at once and the end result is a mess. Like with Faster Pussycat you can tell this was made up as it went along, sub-plots are established but then never resolved or are explained by a quick voice-over at the end, which wasn't very satisfying and was actually quite anti-climatic. Another thing that annoyed me was the philosophical rants that were littered throughout the film, it felt totally out of place, and to be honest, it was quite condescending and patronising, it almost felt like you were being lectured by your parents at times, and I couldn't help but roll my eyes and endure it. The dialogue was quite quirky though, and it felt quite authentic, the little anecdotes and attempts at flirting did feel like things someone would say, so I'll give him credit for that.
Yet in regards to one character in particular, the dialogue was pretty horrific. Ebert tries to create another Shakespeare through the character of Z-Man (John LaZar) and half the time, I didn't understand what the heck he was babbling on about. Consequently, I struggled to believe that such a person would maintain so many friendships with such a large quantity of people.
There was a lot of gratuitous violence and sex too, I understand that they were trying to convey the moral deterioration of their characters, but even from the beginning, people are having sex in every room, and the camera focuses in on anonymous people having angry sex as you awkwardly watch on, not quite sure where to look. The violence suffered from a similar problem too, fights were breaking out all the time for little to no reason whatsoever which was a little baffling and pointless.
Cynthia Myers and Erica Gavin are also meant to fall in love with one another (I think) and honestly, you could find more chemistry in a nunnery. These two actresses were pretty awful, and once again, it's made obvious that Meyer only hired them for their looks and figures. I was really surprised by their attraction for each other though, because they looked no different in any other scene they were involved in.
Conclusion
It tries to be far too many things at once, and that was always a recipe for disaster. But with a so-so cast and very few redeeming features, this film is pretty awful, and I don't really understand how it managed to garner a cult following, perhaps I'm not picking up on something though, I feel that way anyway, because I can't identify any messages the film is trying to make, yet due to the complexity of it, it must have done? Anyway, I'm not a fan of this film, but it isn't the worst film I've seen, not by a long shot. Therefore, I'll give it
It's Russ Meyer time once again! And fans of the late Roger Ebert may already know that Ebert wrote couple of screenplays for Meyer, with this being one of them. I'm also captivated by the life of Edy Williams (pictured below) too, because anyone who shows up to the Oscars the way she did has some balls of steel, and this is often cited as one of her best performances. This film also marks the film début of Pam Grier (albeit as an extra, pictured below). So it is a film that has a lot of history behind it, so I decided to quickly watch it.
The plot follows the rock band, The Kelly Affair, that consists of members Kelly (Dolly Read), Casey (Cynthia Myers), and Petronella aka. 'Pet' (Marcia McBroom) who travel to the West Coast in order to claim a portion of Kelly's aunt's inheritance (Phyllis Davis) as well as to advance their careers. But upon their arrival, all they find is sleaze and depravity.
Positives
I've never been a fan of music prior to the 1980s but the music on offer here was actually really good, had they been a real band, I'd happily purchase some of their records. Also, since the 70s were before my time, it was interesting to examine the conventions and lifestyles of the famous within this time frame. Nevertheless though, I don't watch films to teach me history and to listen to music, I go to Wikipedia and Youtube for those.
The acting was pretty okay too, considering this was the only substantial role that most of the cast undertook in their careers. I did really enjoy Edy Williams however, she was the only one who actually made me laugh in the entire film, and considering this is meant to be a comedy, she fulfilled her purpose there. However, the husky voice she employed and her extended gazes of intent emphasised her sexual allure and it was easy to see why some of the male characters were infatuated by her. However, when you look at Edy in real life, you'll probably realise that her character doesn't differentiate too much from her role here, so I don't feel she was acting in this to a certain degree, she was simply playing an exaggerated version of herself!
Negatives
I'm a fan of Roger Ebert, and I fully admire his dedication and devotion to films... but sadly, the writing here was all over the place. It tries to be too many things at once, and it just gets confusing and perplexing. It attempts to be a comedy, romance, drama, satire, action film all at once and the end result is a mess. Like with Faster Pussycat you can tell this was made up as it went along, sub-plots are established but then never resolved or are explained by a quick voice-over at the end, which wasn't very satisfying and was actually quite anti-climatic. Another thing that annoyed me was the philosophical rants that were littered throughout the film, it felt totally out of place, and to be honest, it was quite condescending and patronising, it almost felt like you were being lectured by your parents at times, and I couldn't help but roll my eyes and endure it. The dialogue was quite quirky though, and it felt quite authentic, the little anecdotes and attempts at flirting did feel like things someone would say, so I'll give him credit for that.
Yet in regards to one character in particular, the dialogue was pretty horrific. Ebert tries to create another Shakespeare through the character of Z-Man (John LaZar) and half the time, I didn't understand what the heck he was babbling on about. Consequently, I struggled to believe that such a person would maintain so many friendships with such a large quantity of people.
There was a lot of gratuitous violence and sex too, I understand that they were trying to convey the moral deterioration of their characters, but even from the beginning, people are having sex in every room, and the camera focuses in on anonymous people having angry sex as you awkwardly watch on, not quite sure where to look. The violence suffered from a similar problem too, fights were breaking out all the time for little to no reason whatsoever which was a little baffling and pointless.
Cynthia Myers and Erica Gavin are also meant to fall in love with one another (I think) and honestly, you could find more chemistry in a nunnery. These two actresses were pretty awful, and once again, it's made obvious that Meyer only hired them for their looks and figures. I was really surprised by their attraction for each other though, because they looked no different in any other scene they were involved in.
Conclusion
It tries to be far too many things at once, and that was always a recipe for disaster. But with a so-so cast and very few redeeming features, this film is pretty awful, and I don't really understand how it managed to garner a cult following, perhaps I'm not picking up on something though, I feel that way anyway, because I can't identify any messages the film is trying to make, yet due to the complexity of it, it must have done? Anyway, I'm not a fan of this film, but it isn't the worst film I've seen, not by a long shot. Therefore, I'll give it