TYTD Reviews

Kicking off The second volume of AGFA/Something Weirds 'Doris Wishman' compendium. 'Bad Girls Go To Hell' is a textbook 'Roughie' and a ruddy well made one at that!

The plot follows Meg, a stay at home housewife with a loving husband whos a bit bored with the humdrum day to day living a housewifes role entails, who's also frustrated that her husband has to work on Saturdays. While heading out to grab the mail/paper, she's jumped by the apartments custodian, who attempts to molest her.

Meg manages to escape, but heads back to the Janitors apartment to try and straighten things out, only for him to attempt to molest her again. This time however, Meg manages to find a blunt object, and with a mighty 'Thwack' that Custodian wont be mopping anymore…

Terrified that noone will believe her situation, Meg packs a suitcase and flees the apartment complex, taking a greyhound bus from Chicago to Manhattan to try and lay low…and if necessary, start a new life. And what follows is Meg (now leading with an alias of 'Ellen Green') trying and failing to start a new life, as every avenue she explores to try and find a room-mate or lodger ends with her either moving in with an abject psychopath sadist who just wants her around as something to beat. OR, she ends up being taken in by someone who has the sole intention of ALSO trying to molest her…This goes on for the better part of 40 minutes. As we the audience try to figure out if Meg will ever truly find peace…

Im not the biggest fan of 'Roughie' cinema, I think it can have its moments if its handled in a sympathetic or tasteful way. But quite often i've found the genre almost border on the fetishistic in its explotation of the abuse of women. 'Bad Girls Go To Hell' treads a fine line, but I think it just about manages to find the sweet spot.

The script itself is a little 'rinse and repeat' (a common trend it seems for Doris Wishman films) but at the same time, it counter balances that with niche variation within those broader repetitions. in short, the scenario is the same, but how its explored varies enough to keep things interesting.

The pacing is to a clip, things move along nicely, and at 64 minutes long, theres barely any time for the film to get complacent. Which I think really works to the films strengths.

While character development is almost entirely centered on Meg, I do feel that the film gives her a decent arc of exploration and development, leaving the character in a significantly different way than we found her. Though, I will say the films ending (Which I wont spoil here) is very much a cop out, and something that Wishman would do multiple times across her filmography, which was dissapointing.

Otherwise? this is a pretty solid one, its got a clear 3 act structure, tonally its consistent, the pacing is also relatively solid across the runtime. and the characters are multi layered, and while the supporting casts time on screen is typically brief, there is a good level of depth to the cast to help shore up this gritty and unpleasent world Meg's been thrust into.

Direction wise, this is, for the most part, a gorgeous film. Having only seen Doris Wishmans colour offerings up until now, I was blown away by the way she handles black and white cinema. I feel that the sexploitation/exploitation 'roughie' genre is Wishmans 'home ground' so to speak. and she really brings the scenes to life with vivid and harsh sequences that really lean into the benefits of shooting on black and white film stock.

To that end, the cine is delightful, a rich, deep focus on shot setups and types, Wishman clearly knew how to light for Black and white, with some wonderful chiaroscuro and purposeful shadow work to really help bring out the beauty of the core cast, and to highlight the obscene nature of our antagonists. Is it a perfect work? no. theres still a few issues here and there with focus and some shots are a little under/over lit. But…I'll be honest, i've just come from 9 films Wishman attempted to shoot in colour, and frankly; this film feels like a Kubrick picture compared to those!

Sequences are well built with clearly thought out shot lists to help shore up the more impactful moments of the film, the edit is tight and feels professional. Wishmans apartment almost certainly appears in here somewhere (I dont think she made a film where her own home DIDNT appear at some point) but this is a tight good looking edit.

As for the performances, Gigi Darlene gets a meaty role to pick up on, and while I think shes maybe a bit thin on physical performance in some of this, when the script asks her to cut loose, she cuts LOOSE. Probably one of my favourite performances in a Wishman film up to this point. She feels well rounded, and more often than not knows when to keep things small, and when to play large. I thought she was excellent.

As is also the case with a lot of Wishman films, the majority of the supporting cast get very little dialogue, and are only on screen for between 5-10 minutes…meaning I can only really judge their performances physically really…and what we have here is a mixed bag, but more good than bad. As campy performances line up and compliment each other very nicely. I had very little to grumble on this one.

Add to that the soundtrack which is a jazzy 60s swing fest to help punctuate the darker side of Manhattan. And all in all? While 'Bad Girls Go To Hell' might not be of my FAVOURITE genre in the world. Its hard to argue that its not a great example of the genre. I think it would pair well with some of the 'Roughie' David F. Friedman flicks like 'A Smell of Honey, A Swallow of Brine' or 'The Defilers'.

If your looking to get into Doris Wishman as a film maker and want a decent idea of what the majority of her output looks/ feels like. This is one of the better examples. Im genuinely surprised by the quality of this production given everything i've seen up to this point. It has left me though with more questions than answers as to what happened to Wishmans 'spark' between 1969 and 2009…

In either case, i'd recommend this one, and I'll almost certainly spin it again.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/bad-girls-go-to-hell/

The word 'Delirious' is thrown around a lot when describing a film that is feverishly incoherent. But I feel if any movie is going to cleanly define itself as 'Delirium in celluloid form', it'll be the 1983 're-edit' of 'A Night to Dismember'. A…frankly BIZARRE experiment gone horribly HORRIBLY wrong.

So originally; 'A Night to Dismember' was a fully written and financed feature by Doris Wishman that was in the process of being finalised for a formal tender for distribution when (depending on your sources) either a disgruntled photolab employee destroyed 60% of the reels for the film out of disdane for Wishman…or 60% of the reels were lost to a photolab fire. The details have unfortunately been lost to history. But thats not something to stop THE Doris Wishman from having her day!

SO! armed with a mixture of the surviving 40% of her original vision plus a large amount of 'outtakes'. She set about remaking 'A Night to Dismember'. To do this, she rewrote the script to reuse the footage that had survived, Hired adult film star Samantha Fox to star in the newly shot footage, chopped about 15 minutes off the runtime and to save money, she decided to try and edit the footage herself and fill in any gaps with a narrator. 'A Night to Dismember' was supposed to release in 1980/81…But by the time Doris had refilmed and rebuilt the film, it was already late 1983. And the film would finally achieve distribution until 1989. And not without good reason.

Unlike the 'Original cut', this version of 'A Night to Dismember' entirely removes the grave yard 'host', and the entire opening plot set in the 1960s. Instead this film opens in 1980, in which Samantha Fox plays 'Vicki' a young girl who, after being framed for something she didnt do was placed into an asylum by her parents (reusing footage from the 60s story of the original cut) The film picks up in 1986 as Vicki has been released from the Asylum to try and allow her to reintegrate into society.

However, her parents are nervous of the release, worried that she may not be well enough and will have to go back. Vicki is also nervous, trying to act 'overly' normal despite still being a bit wobbly to try and reassure people around her that she's not crazy. Vickis siblings however 'Mary' and 'Billy' have other ideas. They're convinced that Vicki is still TOTALLY capable of murder, and they dont want her back in the family, because they see her as a risk.

As such, they hatch a plan to slowly convince Vicki that she IS in fact a murderer, that she's STILL insane, and if pushed far enough, they'll even kill to try and pin it on Vicki so she ends up back in the facility.

And…what follows is THE most horrendously cut piece of film that i've seen in a LONG time. as literal scraps of the original vision for this film are stitched into mismatching footage, mixed heavily with visual effects and TONS of linking narration to try and create a new work that drags horrendously and can barely stay lucid for more than 5 minutes at a time.

The plot is relatively straightforward, but jutts off into so many subplots and random side alleys, that it loses any sense of meaning or direction up until the last 15 minutes or so when it suddenly realises it only has 15 minutes to try and tie the whole thing together.

The pacing is glacial, as basic points are explained over and over again both by the narrator and the people in the movie. a lot of the dialogue has been muted almost entirely, relying on the narrator to fill in the gaps due to cast unavailability and budget issues in trying to bring this thing back online.

the structuring of the script feels like someones reading a novelette over shards of about 10 different movies with no direct context to tie any of it together.

The character lack any and all kind of depth. It still has some very light 'Carrie' vibes to me. But I really struggled to see the 'Halloween' influence in this version.

The directions a mess, because Wishman is trying to slam together 2-3 different movies that all already had clear coherent visions and aims into one clusterfuck of an experience that bordered on giving me a migraine. Its actually amazing to me that this film and its 'original cut' share the same foundations, because to me, this is a 'night and day' experience in terms of one feeling semi compitent and working to its strengths, and the other feeling like the cinematic equivalent of analysing vomit.

The cine is all over the place, as mentioned, the new footage doesnt match the old footage, and the new footage is also massively underlit doesnt follow standard composition, is soft and lacks any kind of personal investment from the director. It very much feels like a rush job, and not a pleasent one.

The edit was clearly assembled by blender, sound drops in and out constantly, the ADR doesnt match the cast and is reliant on cutaways to make it work, scenes stop and start abruptly, often mid word on delivery. Effects overlays are used HEAVILY to mask issues with the footage, cuts on the original film elements and to just…cover up shoddy workmanship. And the soundtrack crashes in and out of the film with poor mixing and balancing. I appreciate Doris was learning to edit on the job, and that this took 4 years to produce. But as an editor with tenure. This was horrendous. simply dreadful. probably one of the worst intentional edits i've ever seen.

The performances, which were mixed in the original cut, are stripped away to almost nothing here, Samantha Fox gets the most of the screentime. But she doesnt get much to do other than look worried and occasionally dub in a scream. The supporting cast get little to no actual dialogue left in this cut and are jump cut out of existence in terms of being able to guage their performances. Its horrendous.

As mentioned the soundtrack is predominantly library tracks, badly chosen library tracks (I believe it was basically whatever was licensed and to hand) cut badly, mixed badly, at times totally absent and essentially pebbledashed into this film with the careful hand of a Jigger Operator. Not *quite* the worst sound edit i've ever heard. But its up there…

I find it insane to say that there are two cuts of 'A Night to Dismember' and that one of them is probably my favourite Doris Wishman film, and one of them is almost certainly the worst Doris Wishman film i've ever seen…and possibly JUST shy of being one of the worst horror movies i've ever seen. its actually mind blowing to me just how easy it is to transform a work to that magnitude.

Heed my advice. The original 'lost' cut of 'A Night to Dismember' is far FAR superior than the 'official' release. If you've not seen either cut and are morbidly curious, the 'Lost' cut is absolutely the way to go between these two. Because this cut? has its own crash fatality report.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/a-night-to-dismember/

Going off the beat and path to mop up a couple of Doris films that arnt properly commercially available in reasonable quality. I decided to check out 'A Night To Dismember'. Specifically, the long throught lost 'Original Cut'. A frankly miraculous find to be honest…

The story goes that in 1978 Doris Wishman, inspired by 'Halloween', decided she wanted to turn her hand to making an out and out slasher/horror film. She managed to scrape the funding together (including a generous donation from a Chicago businessman) and shot the film through early 1979. What happened next is unclear. But depending on your sources, 60% of the footage was either destroyed by a malicious photochemical worker while processing it, or around 60% of the footage was lost in a fire. The end result was that Doris thought her original cut for 'A Night to Dismember' was lost, and so she decided to rewrite the script to utilise the remaining 40% of the footage, recast half the actors and essentially recobble the film into something new and different.

However; in 2018, the original cinematographer for the ORIGINAL cut came forward with a VHS 'workprint' copy of a pretty much finished version of the film. He claimed that 3 copies were in existence, one sat with him, one sat in Chicago and one was in Manhattan. He also alluded to a potential film print copy of the film being sent out to Europe. Though non of those claims have been substantiated.

Whichever way you cut it. Bloody Disgusting arranged to have the film digitised and put on youtube. And…I'll be honest, im so glad they did.

The films a kind of very loose anthology. Split in half following the story of 2 women linked by evil and narrated by a shifty graveyard walker.

The opening plot takes place in the 60s and follows Mary, a young woman recently released from an Asylum, who's staying with her folks and trying to get back into living a normal life. However; things take a turn for Mary when, while out walking, shes hit by a bolt of lightning. Our narrator explains that lightning has the power to create tremendous evil. And we as the audience are left to wonder from this point onwards whether what happens next is a result of 'evil lightning' or of Marys mental health issues. But essentially an evil force begins to creep into Mary's family home. People begin to go missing, and when Mary's parents fine out she's pregnant, they set up plans to put the baby up for adoption and return Mary to the Asylum…with horrifying consequences…

The second plot starts around the halfway point and is set in the present of…1979…1980…or 1981,82 or…83…Its the present and/or not too distant future basically. Mary is dead, her daughter (named Vicki) was taken into foster care by her nearest living relatives and had a horrendous upbringing, being seen as a burden to her carers, and a supernatural freak by her classmates, who are aware of her mothers past and grizzlier dealings.

As such, Vicki doesnt really have friends, and spends most of her time by her mothers grave trying to make sense of why she's been given such a cruel life. But one day, on visiting the grave, she sees a body, slowly rising from the ground, and terrifying voices fill her head. This is to be the catalyst for Vicki, who'll go down a strange and terrifying path of retribution, and inexplicable evil that will surely be…'A Night to Dismember'!

And i'll be honest, I really enjoyed this one, its not really reflective of Wishmans broader works. But I feel its the most consistent picture and vision i've seen from her up to this point.

The plot for this film being inspired by 'Halloween' is a bit of a strange one to me if im being honest, as I'd say this film has a LOT more in line with 'Carrie' than 'Halloween'…But with that being said I can see moments that would align with both in places.

The film keeps a good pace, is tonally consistent and the characters feel quite well developed giving a solid pay off and depth to them that runs the full features length. The script goes to great lengths to create a woozy and nightmare like vibe across the runtime that feels very engaging and quite supernatural.

Is it the most interesting, mindblowing plot ever? no. it's actually quite simplistic, But its how Wishman has chosen to visualise these plot elements that takes the film to the next level. In many regards the script feels like one of the more 'arty' 60's haunted house horror films…it certainly looks that way visually…But with the late 70s slasher sensibilities transplanted into the script, it takes on a bit of a life of its own.

While the script is relatively solid, its the visuals I really fell in love with on this one. a woozy and positively psychotronic experience. Wishman has created a mind melting set of visuals here that mix matte work, overlays, colour gels and stock footage to create something that feels at times like your TV may well be in the process of melting. Despite being shot on film and presented on tape, this feels like an early SOV flick. In fact, throughout; it reminded me quite heavily of movies like 'Sledgehammer' and 'Bordinghouse' and I feel that, in terms of the visuals, it really wouldnt feel out of place with those films.

The cine, for Wishman? is solid. But broadly is a tad generic. compositions are largely fine, the effect work is distinct and creative and sequences flow relatively easily. I dont think i'd say its her best work, but certainly one of her more creative offerings. mixing clear and concious choices with experimentation that borders the line between incompitency and genius.

Performance wise? as with most Wishman productions a lot of this is ADR'd which again, creates a somewhat etherial unnatural vibe to the production, only enhanced by the fact that some of the actors dont really seem used to ADR work and deliver their lines out of time and out of tone with their on set deliveries. Both Dianne and Dee Cummins are great as Mary and Vicki, able to switch between caring family members and absolutely possessed figures at the drop of a hat. They're both great! the supporting cast are cheesy as hell too, delivering mixed performances that range from 'passable' to hilariously awful, and every shade in between.

Throw in a largely electronic soundtrack that only further pushes this film into a bizarre alternate reality. And I honestly had a pretty great time with this 'original' cut. While it may not be reflective of Doris work more broadly, I think its probably one of my favourite films shes worked on. I can highly recommend it if your looking for low budget trippy, pseudo 80s VHS SOV style horror. and I really hope that one of the boutiques manages to wrangle up a bluray release of both this and the 'official' cut so that I can watch this in a quality that is deserving of its output!

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/a-night-to-dismember-the-original-cut/

The final film in AGFA/Something Weird's "Doris Wishman: The Twilight Years" box set and…WHAT a doozy to go out on. I had seen 'Love Toy' a few years ago. But i'd almost completely forgotten what the plot of it was. So revisiting it now…Well, when I say that I've seen 'The Baby', 'Last house on Dead end Street' and 'Salo' and they felt WAY more dignified, and made me feel WAY more comfortable than this movie did. I hope it sets the tone of whats to follow.

The plots pretty straightforward, we open with two gents playing cards, one of them is losing badly. He's lost his home, the factory he owns, all his money, and the nest egg he'd saved up for his daughter. When his friend offers a proposition. He'll give back the factory, the house, the nest egg. Everything. But in exchange, for one night, he gets the guys daughter, and he can do what he likes with her.

Naturally he refuses, but when he realises the barrel he's staring down, he eventually reluctantly agrees. and thus begins a night of sexploitation, violence and horror as the innocent young daughter of this man is led into several lurid sex acts and fetish play, all the while her father is bound and abused in the room next door while trying to get to her.

I have…a number of issues with this film, while it doesnt explicitly say that the daughter is under age, the impression is that she's 'inexperienced', 'barely legal' and even the promotional material describe her as 'nubile'. Which puts the film in 'icky' terratory as it is, given her 'lover' is a 50 year old gruff guy who, as soon as things start, reveals himself to be completely deranged.

And what follows are extended sequences where the daughter is made to pretend to be a cat, drinking cream from a bowl while nude, a lusty daughter, a housewife, a lover and a horse. Its…an intense watch to say the least and very VERY grubby in places.

Much like 'The Amazing Transplant' this is one of those films thats essentially just a rinse and repeat of this guy 'playing' with the daughter for an hour or so, in various different scenarios. Intercut with the fathers pleas for mercy, and the other guys 'wife?' getting slowly turned on by the masochism. Theres very little in the way of actual plotting, tonally its all in one gear for the most part, and the ending is very underwhelming. The characters are interesting in the sense that their obscenity and dilemmas are compelling. But they arnt interesting characters in their own right really.

The direction finds us once again in Doris Wishmans apartment (which im sure has more credits that most actors these days) and I will say the erotic scenes are handled about as well as they could be, presenting a sense of intimacy that has been a bit spotty in the other Doris Wishman films i've seen so far. this ones at least fairly consistent. Though; somewhat let down by the fact they forgot to hide that the male 'performer' for this film is totally flaccid for the entire movie.

Outside of the sex scenes, the general vibes are fine enough, the sleazy, grimy nature of the era this was shot in really helps amplify the seedy nature of the production and the choice to have a lot of moving camera moments, helps create a sense of loss of control that I feel works in the films favour.

The cine is rough around the edges, definitiely needed some more thought and refinement to get it over the line. But as mentioned that roughness helps add an almost 'Gonzo' feel to the production in places, that I feel helps it along. the sequences are rather basic mind, and the compositions are FAR from 'professional' it really does feel quite madcap.

Performance wise? this is basically a show piece for Bernard Marcel, who gets to go FULLY off the rails as card game winner 'Alex' here. he's genuinely unsettling for a big chunk of the runtime. and while the other cast kind of mould around his performance. he basically steals the thing…pretty effortlessly.

I have mixed feelings about 'Love Toy' all things considered. On the one hand, its a dirty, grimy, seedy, sleazy, slightly messed up, exploitation, sleazefest that left me feeling a bit icky having watched it. On the other hand, if thats what Wishman was going for (and im not entirely sure it was) then shes really aced the assignment, creating a film where its faults actually help elevate the film to the next level and guarenteeing that noone will be making eye contact with each other as they leave the 42nd street theater.

Much like 'The Baby' or 'Salo' I cant honestly reccomend this one for casual viewing, I cant recommend it for people looking for films that push the envelope, and I cant really even recommend it as a good example of Wishmans work. But what I can say is that this is almost certainly a film for an acquired taste, and that; if you are curious about this film, to maybe give it a spin. I do feel theres an audience out there for this film. People who'll really appreciate it. For me? this is one I feel comfortable enough saying I almost certainly will revisit this one again in the future…But im going to have to be in a VERY particular headspace.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/love-toy/1/

'Keyholes are for Peeping' (Also known as 'Is there Life after Marriage?!') is billed as 'A parody of Adult movies'…and right out of the gate, I feel its kind of misunderstood its core premise, because parody of adult movies IS in and of itself a genre of Adult movies. Its a bit like saying your doing a parody of a comedy, or an homage to a tribute…Like…I GUESS it can TECHNICALLY be done. But its absolutely an oxymoron…

What I will say is, its nice to once again encounter Sammy Petrillo! After last seeing him in 'Shangri-la' he's back again doing low/no budget adult movies bringing with him his Jerry Lewis impressions…but the further away we get from his 'hay day' the sadder it feels honestly…

Here? Sammy is playing 'Stanley Bebble' a hopeless partner and put upon son who's just become fully licensed as a Marriage Councillor. The problem is, he's a bumbling putz who doesnt know which way is 'up' most of the time, and he's about as lucky in love as the incel community.

So when Sammy hears from the Janitor that a lot of couples in the building are having marital disharmony (the Janitor has a thing for Voyeurism and regularly breaks into tenants apartments…because its his 'thing.) Sammy sets about ensnaring these unhappy couples into a therapy session to work through their issues…The problem though is, as mentioned Sammy has NO idea how love and relationships are supposed to work and with it…laughter and slapstick ensues.

A bit of a clunker if im being honest. clocking in at just shy of 80 minutes. the entire films tone and humour is fully spent in the first 5 minutes, and from there it just idles endlessly in a jokey, but rather grimy and depressing screwball fug for the remainder of the runtime. The pacing is pedestrian, like 'The Amazing Transplant' this films format essentially is just bad humour bookending extended sex scenes and recycled footage from other movies.

The characters are grating and uninterested, there isnt really so much an act structure, it has more in line with a series of sketches or vignettes than it does a fully coherent narrative.

The directions flat, lifeless and as mentioned covered in a kind of sleazy grimy-ness that reminded me very heavily of Ray Dennis Stecklers 'adult' offerings. Doris Wishmans apartment at this point has a SAG card for the amount of time its been shown on screen. The cast direction feels like it was predominantly AWOL and instead Doris just asked them to improv or vibe their way through scenes.

The cine is rough, badly focussed, composition isnt thought through, sequences feel lax with not enough B-roll and an overeliance on recycling footage to try and smooth over the cracks.

The performances are largely flat, the dialogue is dire and a good chunk of the film relies on silent black and white footage, and while some of that is okay, the vast majority of it feels only marginally better performed than the dialogue scripted sequences.

Even the score is largely library tracks that have been played to death.

This one really did feel less like Doris had a vision she wanted to put out there, and more that she had access to Sammy Petrillo for a weekend, a few am-dram friends and a bucket of off cuts to burn through. I could understand the intended audience for this one, but its so half hearted I very much doubt anyone who WOULD be interested COULD be interested.

Definitely the low point so far of the 'Twilight Years' set. I really didnt gel with this one. Its not TRUELY awful. But its one I dont feel I need to rush to catch again…

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/keyholes-are-for-peeping/

I didnt realise until after watching this one that it was intended as a sequel to Doris Wishmans 1974 Cult Classic 'Double Agent 73'…Its not integral to the plot of this movie for you to have watched THAT movie. But you'd be forgiven for not realising, given 'Double Agent 73' was entirely a vehicle for Chesty Morgan (A woman who, at the time claimed to have 'the biggest bust in cinema'). And that this film not only doesnt feature Chesty in any way shape or form. But the actress they hired to replace her doesnt even remotely resemble Chesty.

The only tie to 'Double Agent 73' is the catalyst for the film itself. And the film opens in Wishman style with 'Agent Jane' being murdered by an unknown person while resting on her balcony. (That…pretty much is where the sequel element of this production begin and end. As the REAL plot of the film picks up with 'Ginny', 'Sandy' and 'Nancy' Three women who are invited (seemingly at random) to a reading of Jaynes last will and testimony.

During the reading, its revealed that the girls are in fact daughters of Jaynes, which non of them knew prior to arriving. And that, Jayne has left them a combined fortune of 3 million dollars to be shared between them with one catch. Jayne is convinced she was going to be murdered, and in order for the girls to claim the cash, they will have to hunt down three men that Jayne thought would be the most likely to take her life, and either kill them, or bring them to justice.

If any of the daughters die, the fortune will be redistributed between the surviving daughters, if all three die, the executor of her estate will pocket the lot, and if they dont find the killer, noone gets anything. And thus a sleazy 'sexploitation' spy thriller begins! As the daughters all move into Jaynes old house, and begin trying to figure out who could have killed there late Mother.

While im not sure if the ties to 'Double Agent 73' are entirely required, I will say that I did have some fun with this one. The plot moves at a clip, the pacing is consistent and perky throughout, and while it does fall into the trap a LOT of Doris Wishman films seem to do, I.E extended awkward softcore scenes and nudie shots that do nothing really but pad out the runtime. Their place in this film felt a lot more relevant than in some of her other pictures.

The characters are fun and engaging, though I do feel that Cindy Bordeau got WAY more screentime than her counterparts, which did make this feel a bit lopsided in that regard. It should also be mentioned that the actual plot of this film is RIDICULOUSLY simplistic. To the point that you'll figure out who the killer is within 10 minutes, and how the rest of the films going to play out within 15 minutes.

That being said this does have a distinctly exploitation grindhousey edge by way of 42nd street. I think this would pair up well with another 'all girl' action exploitation feature like 'The Vixens of Kung fu' or 'Joy'. It has enough going on to keep you on track will the closing credits and characters that are fun enough to make it feel somewhat worth while.

The direction feels a lot bigger than most of Wishmans other productions i've seen, the attempt at recreating Vegas using backdrops and stock footage would almost seem believable if it wasnt for how much time we spend once again in Wishmans apartment. Its a cheap looking production, but the attempt to make things seem a lot grander than the budget would allow was welcome and really helped shake things up after the last 2-3 films where AT MOST you'd get 1 other location alongside Wishmans apartment.

Character direction is largely non existent, but then, I didnt really expect it would be. The cine is rough around the edges, but again; feels at least a bit more competent than some of the other entries i've seen in 'The Twilight Years' set. shots are soft, the sound drops in and out and sequences feel quite thrown together at times without a whole lot of consideration for the flow to the scene…But then, when the plots this simplistic, its hard to lose track of whats going on.

I dont really have a problem with the performances perse, they're all fine. But this film in particular seems to have the most HORRENDOUS problem with pairing these beautiful 20-30 something women, with THE most gruff, greasy looking 50-60 year old men…It made me feel more uncomfortable than any of the other exploitation elements i've seen in a Wishman film to date. When I say that i've seen 'No budget' Italian 'Erotica' with male performers who's looks could knock a train unconcious. And these guys somehow feel seedier. I hope that gives you the vibe.

As for the soundtrack, its a mixture of what im assuming is library instrumental tracks. One track in particular gets a real wearing out, it sounds like a 'muzak'/'inspired by' take on Barry Whites 'My First, my last, my everything'…Which came out a year prior to this film…so im assuming that was Doris's attempt to get 'down with the youths'. Otherwise it's pretty complimentary…messsy. But complimentary.

All in? this is one of the more easy to digest and enjoyable 'Wishman' offerings i've seen up to this point. It doesnt do THAT much different from the Chesty Morgan films or 'The Amazing Transplant'. But the way the elements are assembled here just sits right a bit better with me than the others. I'd say its worth your time with tempered expectations. And given this was a rewatch for me, I can say it held up 'not terribly.'

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-immoral-three/

Its been at least 25 years since I last caught this one. Being more familiar with the UK version of 'Dennis the Menace' growing up, I never quite appreciated the US iteration. So with hazy memories and a take away ready to go, I thought i'd give it a revisit.

The plot largely centers around the titular 'Dennis' a Menace to his local population, and in particular to his next door neighour Mr. Wilson. The film really is split into two halves. The first half of the movie is Dennis just…being Dennis, annoying Mr. Wilson and putting him into several slapstick situations through tom-foolery. In the backdrop of this opening half however, a strange 'out of town-er' enters the story, looking to rob this sleepy little suburb of everything it has.

The second half of the movie shifts gears as Dennis is set up to stay at the Wilsons house when his family has to leave on short notice. When the thief begins a string of house robberies, Dennis spots him and raises the alarm, pushing Mr. Wilson over the edge and leading Dennis to set out to find the guy whos stolen from his friends.

Realistically? This is inoffensive. But it does feel a bit recycled. John Hughes handles writing duties here, less than a year after 'Home Alone 2' and a LOT of this film has the vague whiff of 'This was a half idea from Home Alone 2 that got cut from the script mid redrafting'. Even down the burglar element, this thing really does just feel like Hughes rustled through a few old notepads and pulled whatver he felt he could stick together and make fly into it. And while the slapstick elements here are creative and are funny. Its hard to escape the fact that this doesnt feel authentic to itself, it feels like reformed offcuts.

Outside of that, the pacing is a little on the pedestrian side. its consistently paced across the 3 acts, it never feels a flat or dry, but it does feel at times a little too slow for its own good. The humour is timed well enough to keep me invested, but I couldnt escape the feeling that this should have maybe been a bit more 'revved up' more jokes, more interesting developments and less 'set up'. By the third act it does really start to move at a clip. But it does feel a bit 'too little, too late'.

I will say I feel they get the characters more or less down pat, though its a shame they dont involve more of the comic strip cast more heavily. The script seems to focus a lot more on Dennis and Mr. Wilsons relationship, when I know the strips were a lot more versatile in involving Dennis' friends, his parents, teachers, other neighbours. This feels a bit too micro by comparison.

On the direction and cine front, I have no complaints Nick Castle is basically doing a John Hughes impression for the most part, its not a bad one either. In fact; until the end credits I assumed this was written AND directed by Hughes…In either case, its got a clear vision (homage can be a vision) and the scene setups are very well handled.

The direction of the cast is a little bit spottier truthfully, some of the cast like Walter Matthau and Joan Plowright pretty much nail it. bringing just the right level of 'comic' animation and grounded realism to the performances to bring it to life. While I dont like to comment on Child actor performances however, I feel Mason Gamble as Dennis is a little too retreating for Dennis, theres a distinct lack of extroversion that I feel Nick just wasnt able to capture with Mason. which is a shame, as I think Dennis as a character should be boisterous and a bit unaware of the consequences of his actions. I feel like Nick leant more into Dennis being an accidental and VERY apologetic menace. rather than Dennis not really being aware he's been menacing at all, because he's that busy focussing on the next thing at hand.

With it being a studio pic, the cine was never really a concern to me. Its competent, feels a bit like John Hughes tribute, but its got a decent amount of B-roll, the sequences are cut together nicely, theres some great Matte painting and early CGI elements which work well. the shot structuring is very creative, and I enjoyed the flow and feel of it.

Performance wise I've already talked about the core cast, but just to add, I think Christopher Lloyd is kind of underused in this one. He's kind of a mesh of Judge Doom, His character in 'Taxi' and the sticky bandits. He doesnt get a massive amount of screentime, and they other than his physical presence (which is wonderfully grimy) he doesnt get much in the way of character development to work with. Its a real shame.

All in all, 'Dennis the Menace' still holds up! Its a perfectly fine middle of the road family comedy movie, its maybe a little too slow for its own good and isnt exactly brimming with originality. But I feel that if the kids are driving you nuts on a rainy afternoon, you could do far worse. As for me? I enjoyed it, but I dont think I loved it. It has the John Hughes vibes, but it felt a bit diluted.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/dennis-the-menace/

I dont even really know where you begin to talk about 'Let Me Die A Woman' a explotation driven pseudo 'documentary' thats a heavy mix of 'Glen or Glenda' intercut with sympathetic talking head pieces from actual trans men and women, intercut with exploitation elements including graphic footage of gender reassignment surgery, softcore sex scenes and graphic reconstructions of anecdotes from a Doctor who seemingly lives in Doris Wishmans apartment.

Unlike 'Glen or Glenda' The feeling that this was someone working out their feelings on the issue behind the camera isnt there with this one. And a lot of the pro trans messaging that this film puts out is undercut by the sleazier elements of the production and in being a victim of its time and place (once again we find a 20th century production conflating homosexuality, transvestitism and transgenderism)…

What I can say in this films favour is the more sympathetic elements are genuinely engaging, feel sincere and do give context to what it was like to be a trans person in the 20th century. In that regard I feel like it did manage to win me over.

But there are elements of this film that wouldnt be out of place in an anti-trans 4chan shitpost. And there are points where I genuinely struggled to continue watching.

Not for the feint of heart, but an important piece of LGBTQ+ cinema in the sense of this is what the community had to put up with during this time. Wishman is doing what only Wishman could provide. a woman in her 60s who considered herself part of a community I dont think she fully understood. I wont tell you not to watch it, but if your feint of heart, for gods sake approach with caution.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/let-me-die-a-woman/

Continuing my way through the filmography of Doris Wishman, and AGFA's very nicely put together 'Twilight Years' box set. I decided to revisit 'The Amazing Transplant' tonight. A 71 minute short film as I would affectionately 'rib' it.

The plot opens by introducing us to a young man named Arthur who's visiting a girl he's been 'friendly' with, but has recently gone cold on, and is looking to come clean on his mysterious and sudden dissapearence. However shortly after arriving, something overcomes Arthur and he ends up murdering the young lady, before fleeing the house.

A manhunt ensues and a friend/relative (I dont remember which) of Arthurs family who also happens to be a bit of a sleuth, decides to try and find the lad before he gets himself into more trouble than he can handle.

And what follows is a movie thats basically a 'Rinse/Repeat' job of the detective visiting various women Arthur had been known to be 'Friendly' with, it would then turn out that the women and Arthur had had a sexual experience, whether consensual or otherwise, with the tiniest of breadcrumbs being dropped to the audience as to what is ACTUALLY going on…This happens for about 55-60 minutes of the total runtime.

This all builds up to a 10-15 minute 'finale' in which a revelation about Arthur comes to light that put my jaw on the floor, left me with more questions than answers and left me both speechless and reeling with laughter right up till curtain call.

Being honest? This is a 25 minute short film thats been dragged out to 71 minutes via softcore and rape sequences. From a scripting perspective, its a time killer, and not a good one. a handful of half decent lines, and consistent(-ly dull) pacing does not a great movie make. But that last 10-15 minutes is such a tonal whiplash experience, that I almost admire the BALLS of this film for shaking it up as much as they ultimately do. That closing few minutes alone really raised my opinions of this production. And while I wont say its by any means good. It did enhance my opinion of the movie from 'skippable' to 'Definitely worth seeing at least once'.

The plotting, characters and tone of the production are very soft touch, very minimalist, and makes about 90% of the runtime feel ultimately kind of superfluous. Unlike some of Wishmans other productions where the 'hook' is front loaded and pays off across the runtime. This film leaves the 'hook' till the last possible moment for shock factor. And I think a lot of peoples results may vary on this one because of that.

The directions a bit messy, when its good, its great! Wishman really seems to like to get up close and personal with her cast during sex scenes, and the intimacy of her work as a director I feel really pays off in bringing those moments to life. Unfortunatley; due to budget constraints. This production does have a bit of the 'sweaty 70s' vibes to it, Ray Dennis Stecklers work suffers from the same issue, everything looks a bit dirty, sweaty and ill. theres just a sense of everything needing a good scrub. Part of it is just a byproduct of the era. But some of it is the directional and cinematic choices that amplify that seedy low rent vibe. It makes the film feel a bit cheaper than it probably was (which is saying something…)

On the whole, i'd give the direction a pass, despite the technical faults (soft images, rough and ready sequence building and serious continuity errors throughout that make the vision feel very rushed) The Cine suffers a simialar fate, compositions seem rushed, are sometimes overly soft, cutaway shots dont match their wider counterparts and the whole thing feels like it was just shot in several redressed versions of Wishamans apartment, and int he surrounding areas. the sequences dont really hang together well. I can see an attempt at a vision. But I feel like its heavily limited by a lack of skilled crewmenship and budget.

Performance wise, most of the cast feel like their asleep at the wheel. Broadly speaking, everyone feels like their speaking their lines for the first time (and given the budget, it wouldnt surprise me if that were the case due to the cost of film stock) Everyone looks tired, noones putting the energy in, apart from Al Spencer (who plays Arthur) who does have a very stilted, but VERY energetic turn here, in many ways its a shame he gets locked into non speaking repetative physical work in this film, as when he does get lines, he really delivers them with gusto and makes sure to throw his body fully into it.

And, just for the record, the soundtrack was largely late 60's poppy soft rocky slightly porny sounding instrumentals…its notable by the fact I have nothing to say about it, its there because silence would have been unbearable.

All in all, had it not been for the closing 10-15 minutes, I think i'd have given this film half the score i've ended up giving it. The ending alone doubles its rating. This really should have been a short. Its a fun enough time capsule. definitely one to catch at least once. But I'd struggle to justify watching this one for any other reason than 'im going through a load of Doris Wishman films'.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-amazing-transplant/1/

Boobs, willies and naturism…its the Wishman way.

• Deadly Weapons
• Double Agent 73
• The Amazing Transplant

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/list/the-films-of-doris-wishman-ranked/