MovieChat Forums > Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965) Discussion > Big reputation, but nosedives after the ...

Big reputation, but nosedives after the first 20-25 minutes

posted 3 years ago by Wuchak (8860)
22 replies | jump to latest

The movie has a big reputation as a cult flick and Meyer's definitive film, along with 1970's "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," so I was very interested in finally viewing it. The first 20 minutes or so are fun and entertaining in a swingin' 60s kind of way, highlighted by the voluptuous female cast. The music, cars, apparel and thrills are additional highpoints.

Unfortunately, once the women happen upon the ranch with the mad "Ben Cartwright" and "Hoss" & "Adam" (sorry, no "Little Joe") the lousy writing and corresponding eye-rolling histrionics manifest. It's as if Meyer and fellow writer Jackie Moran were attempting to make a mid-60s desert version of one of Tennessee Williams B&W melodramas, but didn't have the writing expertise or professional cast to pull it off. As such, the story loses the viewer's interest and you're left to laughing at the exaggerated antics and trying to enjoy the attractions noted above. Being shot in B&W doesn't help matters.

For a better movie that treads similar terrain (albeit with a wholly different plot) I suggest the contemporaneous "Village of the Giants," which was released a mere 2½ months after "Faster" and is in glorious color. The women are just as good, if not better, and the music is superior, not to mention it lacks an utterly scornful one-dimensional she-devil (don't get me wrong, Tura's great, but her character is so one-note disdainful it gets old after 25 minutes and you just want someone, ANYONE, male or female, to knock her silly). "Village" also doesn't pretentiously try to be a serious 60's tragedy à la "A Streetcar Named Desire" in the desert.

5/10 from me.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21724) 3 years ago

Thank you for such a thoughtful review and I shall seek out Village of the Giants.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

No, this movie is classic from beginning to end. One of the most original flicks ever made. If you pass on it after that review, it's your loss. It sounds to me like the OP was somewhat offended, by Tura especially. He just doesn't understand camp.

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21724) 3 years ago

Oh, I understand completely. I’m a fan.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

👍

[–] Puvwall (1461) 3 years ago

I felt similar after watching this a few years ago, thanks for the recommendation.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

You must be his sock. If you saw it already why did you need a recommendation? It's an excellent underground flick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHqXIT7Fx88

[–] Puvwall (1461) 3 years ago

Jeez buddy take it easy.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

My point here is that people who have never seen it should take these naysayers with a grain of salt. This film is not for everybody. But if you like offbeat underground movies, and camp, you'll love this film.

I see too many fools spamming and panning it. Most of it's trolling.

[–] Puvwall (1461) 3 years ago

Riiiiiiiggghhhttt . Said in my dr evil tone

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

I really think too many "Showgirls" and/or Bruce Willis fans have watched this movie by mistake. They should leave the reviews to those of us who understand Meyers and this genre.

[–] Puvwall (1461) 3 years ago

Well arnt you just an angsty little gate keeper. Sorry for watching your movie . Are there any other movies i should steer clear of?

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

Dude, I'm merely saying people looking for an honest review shouldn't even bother with this page. It's a trollfest.

[–] Puvwall (1461) 3 years ago

Hey you called me a sock . Dont make me out to be the agro

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

Okay so you're not a sock. I apologize.

I just thought it odd that this Wuchak character writes a lousy review, I bump the page with a comment, and you show up to agree with the fool.

It's a rather obscure film and general audiences don't even know it exists.

One thing I noticed, look at all the threads 5+ years and older from IMDb. You see nothing negative. But since MovieChat has taken over the board, and you have a smaller audience with a less sophisticated crowd, all a sudden all the threads are negative.

[–] Puvwall (1461) 3 years ago

Right. Thank you for the apology.
I can appreciate not agreeing with the review. But these films are niche. By definition they are Divisive. Just cause i dont like this niche film dont mean i dont like others. . Anyways you may have convinced me to give this one another try some day lol.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

👍

[–] Wuchak (8860) 3 years ago

I just thought it odd that this Wuchak character writes a lousy review, I bump the page with a comment, and you show up to agree with the fool.

Lousy review or simply honest and balanced review from my perspective? Keep in mind that I praised the opening, the female cast and the 60's ambiance, which are all to die for. Unfortunately the lousy writing and eye-rolling histrionics manifest in the second & third acts. Meyer & Jackie Moran tried to be Tennessee Williams and fell laughably short. Maybe that's what they were shooting for and it's a joke, but that doesn't make it good.

It's a cult 60's flick, no doubt, and therefore worth checking out for those interested, but it ain't no untouchable classic.

I'll take the all-around more entertaining "Village of the Giants" any day. The cult flick "Lord Love a Duck" (1966) is also worth noting since, like "Faster Pussycat," it was shot in B&W.

the fool

Seriously? Just because a person doesn't gush over a certain old flick like you do it doesn't automatically make them a "fool" (rolling my eyes).

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

We all know it's a low budget film with bad acting. Lol. No one was trying to be Tennessee Williams here.

But I actually saw two posters say they'd pass on seeing it after reading your review. That would be their loss. As a critic you do those who read your review a disservice. I felt it necessary to make that point.

It was a revolutionary film for its time. There were few films with women in such commanding lead roles involving such antics and such violence. There still aren't.

You claim it falls off after the first 25 minutes. I say it's consistent to the end.

It's a culturally important film, one which will be analyzed 1000 years from now. That can be said of few films.

[–] Puvwall (1461) 3 years ago

Ahh if im one of those posters you are referring to ,i did see the film before judgement, my orginal comment is pretty clear about that.

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13190) 3 years ago

But you did thank him for the recommendation as if it affected your desire to rewatch it. I thought his review was worthless.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Well this thread descended into a bit of a shit heap.

I for one liked this film a lot more than Wuchak, but I've always found his reviews fair, worth reading and offering a different perspective, everyone has different tastes after all. His opinion is no lesser than any other.

Thanks for the review Wuchak, even though I disagree with the final verdict.

[–] Wuchak (8860) 3 years ago

Thanks Saskia.