valiumthousand I'm surprised to see so many positive reviews here. Not that this is a bad film by any means, but I think that people are trying too hard to find significance and meaning in this somewhat dull crime flick. As has been mentioned in other reviews, much of this movie was allegedly inspired by the crimes of Ted Bundy. Yes, John Karlen's character (the killer) does torture and murder attractive young women, but the resemblance pretty much ends there. Bundy was a good looking charmer, while this guy is a creepy freak, plus, I don't recall any detective having his mistress murdered during an abortive attempt to snare Bundy. Add this to about another 100 inconsistencies, and you can see that there isn't a lot of commonality. The Hillside Stranglers or even the Zodiac had more in common with Karlen's character than Bundy.Anyway, to me, this film is most effective when looked at as being a prototype for the buddy films of the 80s like Lethal Weapon, 48 Hours, et al. James Luisi is the tough cop, and for me, his unending tough guy posturing and attempts to be "the man" around women half his age came off as forced and eventually tiresome. I was more entertained by his sidekick Martin Speer, who was barely discernible amidst his forest of facial hair and feathered do. TV staple Susan Sullivan is adequate as Luisi's mistress, and the rest of the cast is generally competent.Worth a look, and entertaining if one isn't expecting too much. I must say, the basketball scene between the 2 detectives is hilarious. Neither of them look like they had ever handled a ball before and the stilted. awkward gamesmanship is a hoot.

BA_Harrison Despite resembling a made for TV movie for much of the time, Killer's Delight still manages to be an enjoyably tawdry and occasionally shocking effort thanks to the inclusion of plenty of hot 70s babes and one or two genuinely nasty moments amongst the routine detective work.The film opens in a delightfully tasteless manner with its psycho killer, Danny (John Karlen) disposing of a naked female body by launching it carelessly down a San Fransisco hillside. The body is soon found, and the damage inflicted is presented in gory detail through a series of black and white police photographs. The film then follows the sicko as he abducts and kills even more young, attractive women—mostly hitch-hikers—casually dumping their mutilated bodies to be found by members of the public (who include prolific B-movie character actor George 'Buck' Flower). Investigating the case is tough cop Vince De Carlo (James Luisi, who reminds me a bit of John Saxon for some reason), who eventually convinces his sexy mistress Carol (Susan Sullivan) to act as bait for the twisted nut-job.Luisi does a pretty good job as the frustrated lawman who is taunted by demented dirt-bag Danny, but the film is at its most entertaining when the script forgets about dull police procedure and concentrates on its more exploitative elements. Setting much of the action at an outdoor swimming pool, for example, allows director Jeremy Hoenack to feature plenty of honeys frolicking in eentsy-weentsy bikinis, but the most lurid moments are definitely between the killer and his victims. Having lured them into his van, the maniac binds and sexually abuses the poor girls, and in one graphic scene, exposes a girl's heaving bosom before ruthlessly breaking her fingers.The film also manages to leave a lasting impression with a downbeat ending in which De Carlo arrives too late to save Carol from the killer.If you're into 70s thrillers, exploitation, or serial killer flicks, Killer's Delight deserves your attention: it might not be the slickest film in the genre, or the most lurid, but it's tacky 70s trappings, and the convincingly demented central performance from Karlen as woman hating screw-up Danny definitely make it worth watching.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

Woodyanders Cruel and cunning misogynistic serial killer Danny (superbly played with creepy intensity by John Karlen of "Dark Shadows" and "Daughters of Darkness" fame) preys on nubile young lady hitchhikers in a small San Francisco town. It's up to tough, determined Detective Vince De Carlo (a fine and convincing performance by James Luisi) and his easygoing partner Mike (a solid Martin Speer; Dee Wallace husband in Wes Craven's horror classic "The Hills Have Eyes") to nab the foul fiend. Director Jeremy Hoenack, working from a tight and gripping script by Maralyn Thoma (amazingly, Thoma has gone on to a hugely successful career as a head writer for various daytime TV soap operas!), relates the grim and absorbing story at a steady pace, maintains a gritty, serious tone throughout, and develops a considerable amount of nerve-wracking suspense. Moreover, Hoenack admirably eschews for the most part the standard graphic sex and violence route of typical trashy 70's drive-in exploitation fare to focus more on the plot and characters. However, the violence against women is still pretty ugly and upsetting stuff, with the movie reaching its harrowing zenith with a gut-wrenching sequence depicting Danny brutalizing two frightened gals in back of his van. This film further benefits from credible acting by a sturdy cast: Luisi and Speer make for likable protagonists, Karlen excels as one memorably vicious and depraved mother-fixated wacko, plus there's neat supporting turns by Susan Sullivan as helpful psychologist Carol, Hilarie Thompson as the sweet Annie, and the ubiquitous George 'Buck' Flower as old-timer witness Pete. Arthur R. Botham's pretty polished cinematography adds an impressive sense of scope with its occasional breathtaking aerial panoramic shots of San Francisco. Bryon Olson's shuddery score likewise hits the shivery spot. The startling downbeat ending packs a wicked punch. A real sleeper.

lazarillo I hesitate to mention that this movie was reportedly inspired by the real-life Ted Bundy and Ed Kemper murders because this is actually quite different from the "serial killer biopics" that are so popular today. On one hand, this is kind of one those low-rent crime dramas inspired by "Dirty Harry" (which was itself loosely based on the real-life Zodiac Killer). It is set in the suburbs of San Francisco, not far from where "Dirty Harry" takes place, and the focus is mostly on the two cops investigating the murders. The movie also mines the then-popular "sexy female hitchhiker" movies as pretty much all the victims are young females with tight shorts and loose morals.In a particular absurdity though, the killer's main hunting ground is a single community swimming pool. This would not only seem to make him very easy to catch, but you would think he'd run out of victims pretty fast since people would STOP GOING SWIMMING AT THAT PARTICULAR POOL. But from a purely exploitation standpoint, of course, the pool locale provides for plenty of scenes of nubile girls in bikinis. The murders are pretty effective, at least while the killer remains a shadowy figure in a sinister yellow van. At one point, he picks up two girls hitchhiking back to the pool (where their mother had dropped off) from their boyfriends' house. One minute the two girls smoking dope in the front seat of the van with the unseen killer and the next minute one of the girls is tied up in the back watching as her friend gets brutally raped. After the killer comes out of the shadows though and turns out to be a short, pudgy John Karlen (from the Euro-fave horror flick "Daughters of Darkness"), the movie becomes significantly less scary.The movie has some interesting, very 70's touches. The main detective is married (to a woman who's surprisingly understanding when the killer at one point dumps a body on their lawn), yet he's carrying on with a female professor of criminology, who hatches a crackpot scheme to catch the killer using herself as bait. The other detective (Martin Speer, who many may recognize as Dee Wallace's husband in "The Hills Have Eyes") is single, but quite a swinger himself. In one scene he is seriously rebuffed by a female colleague, but in the next scene he is in bed with her (only in the 70's--or, at least, only in the movies of the 70's). The cynical ending is also very 70's. And that, perhaps, is the best reason to see this today--it really captures the flavor of the era (think a kind of downbeat "Starsky and Hutch" with graphic violence and nudity). Not recommended for serious serial killer buffs, but a good movie for 70's crime thriller fans.