hammer4 My review is based on the Criterion Collection DVD released in 2016. The two DVD set includes commentary by Roger Ebert, who wrote the screenplay and co-wrote the story with director Russ Meyer. He contends that the filmmakers' intentions, mainly consisting of Meyer and himself, were to create nothing less than an exploitation, satire, horror, rock musical. This may or may not have been the actual original intentions. Mr. Ebert's comments were recorded some 34 – 37 years after this film was produced. Therefore due to the passage of time alone I feel one must take his comments with the proverbial grain of salt. Attempting to make a successful picture combining all of these elements would be a daunting task indeed, for anyone. At any rate, regardless of what the intentions may have been one can only assess the final result; that is, what actually appears on the screen. I do not find a genuine or effective satire, horror picture or musical. I feel the exploitation elements, which were probably the easiest to bring to the fore especially in view of Meyer's film experiences, were moderately successful during relatively small portions of the film's 109 minute length.As at least one other reviewer has pointed out, merely presenting clichéd, hackneyed or ludicrously exaggerated and over-the-top situations does not constitute legitimate satire. The latter requires wit, intelligence, intuitiveness, as well as a certain degree of restraint and subtlety. Meyer's general approach is ham-fisted; the equivalent of hitting the viewer's head several times with a sledgehammerThe basic plot element was of course a well-worn cliché even when this movie was filmed back in 1969-1970. Three young and very attractive women leave their small town existence to seek fame and fortune as aspiring rock musicians in Los Angeles, accompanied by their male manager who is also the boyfriend of the lead singer. The central characters are depicted as relative innocents at the beginning but in no time they succumb to or are overwhelmed by the moral turpitude which is L. A. Their encounters or relationships with numerous morally corrupt, depraved and or insane characters provides the essence of the film. Naturally a fair amount of casual sex with attendant nudity and liberal drug use is depicted. In retrospect one can see this film as very much of its time: when Hollywood was trying to "get with it" so to speak. There really were no limits as far as what could be depicted on screen once the rating system was implemented in 1968, provided the studio was willing to acquiesce to an X rating, as 20th Century Fox did in this instance. On the other hand, those that are expecting a very raunchy skin fest will probably be greatly disappointed. By present standards the nudity is fairly limited. For the most part it consists of a number of very brief glimpses of female breasts. A lot of this has to do with Meyer's frequent quick cutting editing style. There is nothing that could truly be considered sexually explicit or graphic, however there are several doses of very graphic, gratuitous and repugnant violence towards the end. The latter sequence almost seems to be tacked on from another film and is presumably yet another attempt to "shock" the typical viewer of 1970.Had the filmmakers chosen to let the relatively light and comedic sexual exploitation elements of the film to predominate, I feel they would have been much more successful insofar as producing an enjoyable film. Instead they felt the need to clumsily tack on some sort of half baked moral message at the very end ludicrously intoned by a voice-over narrator. My initial impression was that this was intended as satire but Ebert's comments indicate that it actually represented Russ Meyer's sincere sentiments.I will say that this film, while a big failure, would be worth seeing at least once as a curio. It does look good; it's generally well photographed with fine color. I don't know if the film was restored for DVD release but the quality is quite good especially for a film this old. There's no question that Meyer has a strong and unique visual style that is well represented here. The amount of female pulchritude on display is considerable. The lead performers don't display much in the way of acting ability and none of them went on to have successful careers. In fairness to the performers the characters they portray are not exactly well developed.

Alex da Silva An all female rock trio head over to L.A. to make the big time and party. They fall in with the trendy party crew and take their clothes off. This happens a lot. There are also drugs knocking around. It's very campy and the colour and sets are interesting to look at. The best thing about the film is the appearance of Strawberry Alarm Clock performing at a party at the film's beginning. Pretty cool stuff.Unfortunately, the story is devoid of any direction as we just watch endless people take their clothes off. The acting is atrocious with countless unbelievable characters and the dialogue extremely phoney. As you watch the film it goes from colourful, hipster cool movie (not much of this) to soft porn to soap opera to full-blown horror. It's a complete mess – it doesn't work. We get a character who becomes a paraplegic – laughable acting from a wheelchair - and a man with breasts thrown into the mix! It's obviously been written by a man as it is basically a male fantasy with plenty of breasts. Must have been the inspiration for the Rocky Horror Show which is infinitely better. It's a camp, kitsch, trashy horror fest so you'll love it if that's what you go for.

Leofwine_draca I started off hating this film. An exploration of male/female relationships set during the 1960s party scene, I found it alternating between bouts of cheesy singing and dull conversation. The characters irritated me and the script (by none other than film critic Roger Ebert) felt outlandish.But nonetheless I kept watching. Or rather, something kept me watching. I started getting to know the intriguing characters, and then I realised I was hooked. It's barely reminiscent of a Russ Meyer movie - despite focusing on sexual relationships there's little smut or nudity - but it has style to spare. The ending is both shocking and hilarious and comes totally out of left field. Odd, yes, but compelling with it.

jimrin ...I think I would have to blame the script more for my lack of interest in this movie. It seems it was intended as a parody of how conservatives view Hollywood. I saw at least one review refer this to the Reefer Madness of the 70s. The difference though is that Reefer Madness was intended to be a serious movie. In this case, even as a parody, to the group who would have such a view about Hollywood, it actually reinforces those views. Perhaps a much better parody would be to include those type of people who have such views in the movie to actually show how those people are being hypocritical or wrong about their views. As the movie stands, you have no empathy for the characters who all turn out to be selfish (well, at least, I am hoping that most people out there have little empathy for the characters)... In my view, for a movie to be successful, you have to have empathy with the protagonist(s). The campiness stylishness is great (if you enjoy that type of thing), but to me, the story and characters provided little interest.