Scott LeBrun Veteran cult favourite Andrew Prine excels here in one of his wonderfully warped 70's leading roles. He plays Andre, a sick, twisted freak living in seclusion in the desert, who comes upon a trio of aspiring showgirls trying to make their way to Vegas and who have had car trouble. He seems to be benevolent, but in reality is about to add them to his captives - a group of women he keeps chained up in his barn. The misogynistic Andre views these women as no more than (performing) animals, yet to add to his quirks he has a Norman Bates style mother fixation (he comes to believe that one of these girls actually *is* his long dead mother) and keeps his dear old dad, who mutated as a result of H bomb testing, confined on his large amount of property. Meanwhile, there's a concurrent story of the girls' agent (Chuck Niles) desperately trying to find them. Some exploitation fans can certainly take issue with a movie that they may feel really doesn't go far *enough*; for one thing, the nekkid-ness promised by the DVD cover is in actuality quite fleeting! That's not to say there isn't some fun to be had from the premise and some of the scenes. Our macabre ringmaster is fond of whipping the girls, will sometimes drench them in blood and sic his big cat on them, and in one deliciously creepy scene, introduces one of the girls to his pet snake. And when we finally get a look at the deformed dad (makeup effects by Byrd Holland, who also plays a small role, and Douglas White), he's a hoot to behold. The girls are all pleasing to look at (there's also a small role for busy 70's era exploitation actress Jennifer Ashley, as the flower child), but the one to watch here is clearly Prine, who, as can be expected, acts the Hell out of his role; even if he does indeed regret making this movie, one wouldn't know it from the performance he gives, the mark of a true professional. The movie is admittedly quite a gritty and rough little production - perhaps the single most fascinating aspect is realizing that it's an early directorial effort for Robert Altman protégée and independent auteur Alan Rudolph, one that it's all too easy to believe he would want left off his resume. But it's reasonably enjoyable for exploitation buffs, right down to the downbeat ending typical of so many other A *and* B movies of the 1970's. Somewhat disappointing but not too bad. Seven out of 10.

lazarillo From the acclaimed director of "The Moderns" and "Choose Me" we have a timeless, heartwarming tale of a deranged man living in rural Nevada who kidnaps stranded female motorists (which there seem to be an inordinate amount of for rural Nevada) and, bullwhip in hand, trains them to perform in his private circus, all the while his father who has been turned into deformed monster by radiation from nuclear tests runs amuck.As other reviewers have noted there is a definite lack of nakedness in this movie alternatively titled "Barn of the Naked Dead", but a lot of bare breasts and female buttocks would only distract from the real (and perhaps only) reason to see this movie--Andrew Prine. Andrew Prine was second only to David Hess when it came to portraying sick psychopaths in 70's drive-in movies, but where Hess's psychos were just flat-out creeps, Prine's could be hilariously funny (even though it wasn't always clear whether the actor himself was in on the joke as he always seemed to take these roles VERY seriously). While this is far from his best work, Prine is always fun to watch.This movie might also have a bit of "car wreck" appeal considering that it is loudly rattling skeleton in the closet of esteemed director Alan Rudolph. It has an incredibly ridiculous ending that can perhaps only be explained by Prine and the three female leads all walking off the set before the final scene leaving Rudolph to completely pull something out of his. . .well, see it and tell me where it came from. It's hard to believe that anybody would make a movie like this, let alone the otherwise respectable Rudolph.Addendum: this movie was recently re-releaesed on DVD by Johnny Legend with brief nude scenes of overweight actresses that (partially) justify the alternate title.

Steve Nyland (Squonkamatic) Weird, Disturbing GarbageOne axiom is true about any given art form: It did not exist before a person made it. One of my primary interests in evaluating art forms in a critical manner is to contemplate the motivation behind the decision to execute the work. I have no idea why anyone would have made a movie like BARN OF THE NAKED DEAD, though after seeing it I can understand why folks want to see it: Great title.Existing these days as scummy old rental tapes [including a preposterous version called NIGHTMARE CIRCUS, that is worse if possible] and the occaisional underground re-record, I managed to snag one of the original rental tapes by Ariel Entertainment, whoever they were, and was able to assess an "uncut" 87 minute print of the film. I was not prepared for what it had to offer.I love low rent "B" grade horror, especially European 1970's stuff, and have just begun delving into some of the American made examples beyond DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT or COUNT YORGA. I was enticed by the name Andrew Prine, a magnetic veteran actor of many a B exploitation movie romp -- his role in SIMON KING OF THE WITCHES might be one of the great overlooked performances of the 1970's. His role in BARN OF THE NAKED DEAD is one that I hope he eventually got over, because films like this can wreck a career especially when an actor throws himself into the role, something that he was not apparently able to resist. I wonder if he got to view his daily rushes, or even if there were any daily rushes -- My thought is that the entire film was shot in about a week & a half, and exposed/edited only afterwards when nobody could stop the cinematic car wreck that unfolds onscreen.THE PLOT: Man has lived in near isolation on former Army nuclear testing grounds in Nevada [interesting premise], family having long since deserted or otherwise been rendered ioperable. Prine compensates his lack of company by sitting up in a duck tower with a rifle and putting a bullet through unsuspecting car engines.These cars are all driven by skanky looking 70's B supporting actresses, whom he cons into coming back to his farm. There they are taken prisoner and chained inside of a large barn. The majority of the film consists of footage of the girls chained up to these little posts and cowering with fear, trembling with cold, and discussing their situation. Between conversations Prine lurches in [sometimes dressed as a big top circus M.C.] and drags one of them off to be abused -- verbally, psychologically, physically, and in the movies sole moment of true interest [though the outcome was cut], by a snake. Ahem. He also talks to himself and plays with a toy windup bigtop. He is not a person but a mannerism -- weird behavior for a movie plot with legs attached. I doubt if he was allowed a single 2nd take.At the end of the film a not too secret horrifying secret is revealed, and everyone dies except the two girls that went crazy during their ordeal, which I guess is to make you think, "Gee ...". The End. How they all die I will leave to be a discovery for those stupid enough to seek it out: Don't let my description of a thirty second clip of Snake Sleaze tempt you: BARN OF THE NAKED DEAD just plain sucks.The "cinemetography", on all levels of considerations, sucks. The script sucks, apparently an attempt to adapt the Ed Gein story to a contemporary "issue", though just what that issue would be remains undefined ... Be angry at the Army for atmospheric atom testing, maybe. Don't take the long scenic route when you can fly, perhaps. Watch out for maniacs that have been exposed to nuclear fallout? Nahh -- too easy. Maybe it will come to me at some point, but like I said this film seems to have been made without any real intent, unless that intention is to disturb.And rest assured, BARN OF THE NAKED DEAD is disturbing. Folks may have some bondage romp in mind but BE WARNED: this film lacks even the slightest touch of erotic charm. There is sleaze, but it is not arousing sleaze, unless wondering how the girls go to the bathroom when chained up gives you a rise -- that was the only thing that the film made me wonder about. Then again I guess they didn't need to, since all of the barn scenes could have been shot in one afternoon, so maybe nobody had to go before they were finished.Avoid this film. Avoid it like you would a burning car at a gas pump.Avoid it like you would avoid an open cesspit. Avoid it like you would avoid someone with a bad case of bubonic plague. Don't be suckered in by a kinky box cover or descriptions of unspeakable horrors. They are unspeakable, allright -- so awful that I can't manage one more word.

byght This movie. Wow. This movie."Worst Movie of All Time" is a pretty tough thing to decide. Do you give it to the greatest of all "worst" movies? ("Plan 9 From Outer Space") Do you give it to the most poorly put-together movie ever? ("Red Zone Cuba") Or do you control for budget differences and give it to the artistically worst movie ever? ("Batman and Robin")At the end of the day, I think you have to give it to the most unwatchable movie ever, for what are movies if not...um...things for watching? Anyway, this is it.I remember a barn and some girls. I remember a tool with a whip saying "raise them, lower them." I remember an outhouse with a jacked-up wookie living in it, and maybe something about a cougar, but I might be making that up. The rest of the movie is basically unintelligible because the dialogue was recorded by a microphone buried 30 miles into the earth's crust. Even if you could hear it, there are no words that could soothe this awful pain as it emanates from the bleak landscape of Midwestern scrub-brush. Here's a fun game: have a competition with your friends to see how long you can go without looking at the clock. The longest we got was about five minutes, and that was only through concentrated willpower. Okay, I lied, it's not a fun game at all, but it's a way to help get through the movie. Other possible solutions: heroin, suicide, blindness or a lobotomy. I normally love bad movies and recommend them to my friends, but this is an exception. I am not kidding here. To you bad-movie amateurs out there, take it from someone who has been to film hell and back more than once: this is not "so bad it's funny," it's just bad. In fact, it's the worst. DO NOT SEE THIS.