TYTD Reviews

Another Day, Another Doris Wishman movie, and we've arrived at 'Another Day, Another Man' an effort from 1966 thats billed as a 'Spiritual Successor' to 'Bad Girls Go To Hell'…and while I can kind of see the view for that, I wasnt quite as impressed with this one as i'd have liked to have been.

The films unusually more of a kitchen sink drama combined with Sexploitation elements than Doris' usual fodder as we follow 'Ann' and 'Tess'. Two roomates living very different lives, on the verge of a forking point.

Ann is an office worker who's engaged to a lovely, caring man named Steve. The film opens with Steve telling Ann that he requested a raise recently, and his boss has approved it! and better still theres a really good chance he could be full on promoted into an even better position, meaning even MORE money. He's essentially set for life and wants to take Ann with him on the journey, so he asks her to marry him.

Doing this unfortunately means that Ann would have to quit her job, and it means she'd be moving in with Steve, meaning her and Tess wouldnt be roomates anymore…But she's more than happy to do that to marry the man she loves, take up a steady life of House-wivery, and enjoy the pleasures of financial security.

Tess by contrast is in a bit of a bad way, she has an 'on/off' relationship with a crime kingpin called Bert, and Berts more interested in what Tess can earn for HIM, than on what HE can do for her…Berts trade is in the worlds oldest profession. He's essentially a pimp. and Tess is one of his 'best girls'…But she isnt as keen on the 'scene' anymore and on seeing how happy Ann is with Steve, she begins to consider settling down.

Things however take a turn for the worst, when Steve falls ill, and is required to stay in bed on a strict medication ritual for 5-6 months. Unable to work, Ann finds herself trapped in the situation, as she is unable to get her old job back, and needs to really be present during the days to keep Steves medications and care on track.

Eventually, Ann winds up at Berts door, and he pairs her up with Tess to help show Ann 'the ropes'…But things start to get overly complicated for Tess, as the dark underbelly of sex work, and the increasing realisation that, not only has she found herself trapped in a life that doesnt have a happy ending, but she may have pulled Ann into it as well, becomes all too much to bear…

And I will say, I quite enjoyed this one, much like the other 'roughies' Wishman was releasing around this time, I cant say im overly smitten with it, but I do think this is probably one of her more grounded pieces, as the script really pulls the audience through the dark and seedy world of organised sex trafficking, and how desperation can ruin and destroy peoples lives.

Once again, we have a script that moves at a good clip, has a decent, solid three act structure, has decently written characters that I actually care about and am invested in, who get a really solid turn of character development across the runtime, really helping bring the scenario to life. The dialogue in this is very nicely handled, the tone overall is grimey, seedy and very engaging in terms of keeping thge audience where it needs to be. I dont think I quite 'vibed' with this one, but that isnt to say its a bad script, I just found it maybe floundered a little bit in places, and maybe didnt quite go far enough in its conclusions…But otherwise this was a perfectly fine piece.

The direction here is largely solid, Wishman has a clear vision for how she wanted this film to play out and theres definitely some moments within the sequence and world building, that I would say rank amongst some of her best ideations…

But there is a noticeable number of, what im assuming is, bad cuts, film 'ends' and weird outtakes for lack of a better descriptive. there are a handful of directoral choices here where the camera will cut to a shot of the actress in a 'mid head shot' and the camera will then just crash into her boobs…this is while the characters are talking, and theres no real reason or justification for why the shot does that…its almost like the camera just. Fell forward, into their boobs…and they left it in the final cut.

Theres also lingering shots of just the actresses legs, which would be fine during dialogue scenes…but they arnt framed right. Its like someone left the camera on a chair, on a wonk, while it was still running, and then when it came to the final edit…again, they just somehow left the shot in. Additionally; the final 5 minutes have multiple moments where it seems like the camera ran out of film mid shot as it flashes to white, or jumpcuts to an outtake of the cam op walking with the camera towards the next shot setup…again, theres no intention in that happening…the film just…does that. for some reason…

Outside of those instances though the cine itself is relatively solid, giving a rough and ready handheld approach that I feel suits the requirements for something quite as bleak and grimy as the subject of this film. Its imperfect, but does have its moments.

Performance wise, I feel Barbara Kemp and Mary O'Hara as Ann and Tess are solid leading ladies, they both give performances that swing wildly between over the top campy fun, and actually quite considered introspective performances that actually do pull the audience into their troubles, and really give the audience something to chew over. I really liked them in this.

Credit must also be given to Sam Stewart as Bert, who manages to give a wonderfully cruel performance as the head of the crime organisation, and an unpleasant partner to Tess. He doesnt get as much screentime as I personally would have liked, but I very much enjoyed what I saw, his physical performance didnt inherently scream 'hardened criminal' to me, but his line deliveries combined with his 'look' really pay off.

And…it wouldnt be a Doris Wishman film without the obligatory mention that a significant chunk of this film was shot in Doris's apartment (I feel I know the floor plan off by heart at this point), that the soundtrack is largely library tracks (Syd Dales back again, much to my delight) and that…whether intentional or not, I feel it cant be missed that randomly in the middle of this film, via flashback, we get a cameo from Gigi Darlene, who played the lead character 'Meg' in 'Bad Girls Go To Hell'. appearing (apparently via archive footage) AS Meg. With the flashback indicating that, at some point in her journey…whether its part of her 'main film' fever dream, or something that happened post credits, she ends up on the run again, ends up at Berts place, where she's put out as a sex worker, and eventually flee's Berts world to try and find a new start…I assume this was because 'Bad Girls' did well, and Wishman wanted to capitalise on it…But its still surreal that the film detours into that…just because it can…Appreciated, but an odd turn.

All in all? I enjoyed 'Another Day, Another Man'. its a fine enough kitchen sink piece about crimes seedy seedy underbelly. But; while theres a lot of really good and solid things about this film. Theres enough here to hold it back from really truly being exceptional, and that combined with the fact that I just didnt truly out and out LOVE it. means that I can absolutely appreciate it, i'll very likely revisit it some day. But I cant say its my favourite Wishman piece. I'll recommend it as another 'Upper-middle of the pack' Doris Wishman film. But broadly speaking, its not worth actively hunting down.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/another-day-another-man/

Continuing through 'Doris Wishman: The Moonlight Years' we have 'A Taste of Flesh', a film *presumably* lost to time, as its presented on AGFA/Something Weirds lovely Bluray boxset as an (admittedly high quality) S-VHS rip.

The plot opens with Hannah and Bobi, Bobi is a European traveller who Hannah met a couple of years ago while backpacking (they're in a lesbian relationship essentially, though the film never out and out says it) Bobi has come to the states for work, and Hannah has kindly invited her to stay at her apartment for a few days while Bobi's in town. Things were heading into 'hot and steamy' terratory when things are interrupted by Carol. Hannahs roomate, who gets the lowdown on their new house guest and things start to settle in.

However; it isnt long before things take a sour turn, as two men claiming to be plumbers stage a home invasion and take the ladies hostage. It turns out that Bobi's 'Work' is in fact following and monitoring the prime minister of her country. and the gents who've broken in are determined to find out what time the PM will be checking into his hotel, in order to stage an assassination attempt. And conveniently, the PM's hotel is within eyeshot of the ladies apartment. Leading to a tense race against the clock to see if our three leads can take out the criminals before they achieve their nefarious goal!…And because this is a Doris Wishman film, smut peddlers need'nt fear, theres plenty of nudity, dry humping and 'Roughie' stuff to keep things turning over.

While not exactly my personal idea of a 'thrill ride' I did enjoy 'A Taste of Flesh' and at 71 minutes long I think you could do far worse…especially when it comes to the films of Doris Wishman.

The plot steadily builds up across the runtime, keeping a consistent rising tension, tone and pace that does feel pretty satisfying by the time of the payoff, theres a clean 3 act structure, we have a smaller cast than usual, which means we get a lot more time giving these characters, depth, interesting character arcs, ACTUAL development that feels like it pays off in the end. Its probably the best structured Doris Wishman film i've seen to date if nothing else!

While I will say the plotting does maybe bulge a little in the 2nd act, there wasnt anything egregious here that made me baulk. Its just a pretty solid, kind of fun, okayish story, thats consistent, but not exactly earth shattering.

The direction, is a bit of a mixed bag, with the majority of the film taking place solely in Doris Wishmans apartment, it quickly becomes apparent that theres only so many ways you can film 3 rooms, all of which have the same coloured walls, carpets and decor. While I will say there is some very pleasent cine and planned direction here (a dream sequence featuring Hannah and Bobi is a definite highlight) for the most part this feels a little uninspired.

Combined with some mixed ability cine, the sharp and dramatic compositions have instead been exchanged for more handheld shots, that dont quite feel as thought through as some of the other films in these box sets. While it is nice to still see (some) attention to detail on the lighting front, it feels a lot more slapdash and not quite as satisfying as 'Bad Girls Go To Hell' or 'Indecent Desires'.

As for the edit? its fine, theres a couple of effects shots that are nicely handled, cuts are largely consistent, I didnt notice anything to awful. the sequences hang together fine and theres some half decent attempts at creative transitions… Its not BAD particularly…her 70s work struggled a LOT more on that front. But its just not to the standard I know Doris CAN do.

Performance wise, for me? Its all on Peggy Steffans and Buck Starr as Hannah and the home invader 'Franky' respectively. While the supporting cast do give a decent range and solid enough performance Peggy and Buck both go above and beyond tantilisingly dancing into Campy terratory, but just pulling back enough to stop it from being farsical and annoying. I think they both get a great range to play with, have some of the best line deliveries of the feature, have great physical presence and just…really plumb their all into this, they were very satisfying to catch here.

And the soundtracks mostly library tracks again, but the selection very much matches the tone of the film, and it was nice to see some Syd Dale thrown into the mix! (one of the unexpected plusses of enjoying Muzak and library intrumentals!)

All in all? This is definitely one of the better Doris Wishman offerings. I enjoyed it, I thought it was light enough to enjoy both with full attention, or as a background movie. I cant say its a lifechanging movie, nor can I say its 'Must See' but if you are curious about the works of Doris Wishman, and dont want to have her filmography ruined by seeing her absolute best works up front. Then this is probably one of the best starting points I could recommend for an idea of the kind of thing Doris does best. I absolutely do recommend this for people looking to learn more about the films of Doris Wishman, and for folks working through her films who havent caught this one yet. For people looking for decent 'roughie' films…you almost certainly can do better.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/a-taste-of-flesh/

Another day, another feature from Doris Wishmans 'Moonlight Years' collection, and a film that has a pretty okay premise that gets stretched WELL beyond its elasticity.

'Indecent Desires' plot is interesting, but astonishingly brief. A chap call 'Zeb' finds a doll in a trash can while walking in the park, and decides to take it home. On the way home he meets Ann, a woman who…in Zebs opinion shares a striking resemblance to the doll.

On getting the doll home, Zeb begins to caress it, and it turns out that Ann and the doll have some kind of possessive link, as Zebs caresses begin to transfer onto Ann. Ann is of course deeply confused and distraught about this, and has NO idea why she feels the way shes feeling. After closing herself off to people when this eventually ends up happening a few times, Zeb by chance realises that the doll seems to be having some sort of effect on Ann, and decides to act out all kinds of heinous stuff on the doll to…Im guessing drive Ann insane, so that she cuts off all her friends and might actually 'get' with Zeb? Its kind of hard to really say what the point of this film was honestly…

What we have here is a plotline that realistically should have been a 20-30 minute short film, extended out to 71 minutes with repetition that tests the patience and strength of even the most ardent cinephile. And erotic sequences that are 'soft' and drag for signficantly longer than they should do too.

Theres almost no dialogue for the full runtime barring very brief conversational exchanges, most of what happens on screen is visual only. The characters arnt well defined, dont really go through much development and we dont really learn much about them as the film goes on. Instead we get a fleeting snapshot into 'just some folk' for an hour, before being dumped back out in reality.

And the combination of all of these elements results in a film that feels abhorrently over long, border painful to actually sit through, with very little going on and every possible opportunity to drag ass is thoroughly exhausted.

Had this been a 20-30 minute short; this could have been a really interesting weird little movie that I probably would have given a signficantly higher score to. Indeed, the direction and cine are a little spotty, but at least Wishman vaguely knew how to shoot in black and white, how to light for it, compositions that work within the sequence and how to make people look good in greyscale…

Instead its a film that flounders between being a surreal pseudo comedy, a sexploitation flick and briefly dips into being a 'Roughie' in the 3rd act. It doesnt really know what it wants to be, what it wants to say or how it wants to say it, and it drags itself out to painful lengths to no real 'enlightenment' on that front.

While visually its a relatively solid picture, with okay editing and a good jazzy soundtrack to help keep at least SOME sense of energy up. The characters dont really get much time to really bring their bast act to the camera, and the whole thing ends up feeling very thin on the ground and without much substance.

If it were truncated, I wouldnt hesitate to recommend it. As it stands? its a good idea, mishandled into a painful watch, I likely wont revisit it again, I cant recommend it. and I can confidently say, there's better Wishman out there than this.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/indecent-desires/

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/