Michael_Elliott Pick-up (1975) 1/2 (out of 4) Crown International flick was part of BCI's Drive-In Collection set but I'm really not sure what the hell this film was trying to do. Two hippie chicks (Jil Senter, Gini Eastwood) hitch a ride with a hippie guy (Alan Long) but soon they both regret it. As I said, I have no idea what this movie was trying to do but it's without question one of the dumbest films I've ever seen. I love drive-in trash but this thing was simply beyond bad and the only reason I don't give this thing a BOMB rating is because it's so strange that you have to watch it until the end just to see how much stranger it will get. The two female leads only appeared in one movie and this is it. I wouldn't say their performances were awful but they are pretty bad but a lot of this is due to the really bad screenplay, which has everything from a priest molesting one of the girls to one having some sort of sexual fascination with God (or perhaps it was meant to be Jesus). There is quite a bit of nudity, which is good because otherwise this film would be unwatchable. I'm going to guess this film was trying to be some sort of Easy Rider rip off but it doesn't have a single moment going for it.

aczilla-1 Bernard Hirschenson was an artist first and a filmmaker second, and I can say with certainty that he deserves respect for his cinematography and editing skill. I have yet to see the film market categorize Pick-Up properly for what it is: outside the realm of your average drive-in experience. It's been called grind-house and soft-core, but the only description that fits is drive-in. The typical drive-in movie, on its surface, had as much legroom as the Dodge Dart parked in front of it and packed with teenagers, but quite a few drive-in movies dug deeper to defy classification. Pick-Up fits almost every existentialist argument and moral dilemma known to man into a story where essentially nothing happens (in the plot, that is, because your eyes cannot deny there is quite a lot happening). The only conveyed conflict comes after the opening when our stars are stranded in the Everglades. Then things get weird, but how weird is ultimately up to the viewer.Carol and Maureen hitchhike with Chuck, who is driving a passenger bus converted into a mobile home. Their first glimpse of him is stopping by the side of the road to take a leak, so it seems pretty clear right away that these girls are stunning judges of character. Hey, it's the '70s! Don't be so uptight. A hurricane knocks out a road sign, and a wrong turn finds the bus stuck in the swamp. Carol and Chuck then spend the majority of the time joined at the hips and romping naked in the foliage. I always found something unsettling about this Garden of Eden motif because I am concerned about how many micro bacteria and parasites these performers had to endure in their private parts to make a movie. Watch virtually any Russ Meyer film, where a buxom naked star rolls around a muddy shore littered with debris from the current, and tell me it doesn't send a chill down your spine.You almost find yourself believing that this is the only real point: good-looking naked people indulging in nature. That's basically what any plot synopsis gives you. That's what Mill Creek Entertainment's Drive-In Cult Classics 32-movie set gave me. That's the synopsis that IMDb gives, but it is drawing you into the trap. Enter Maureen. Vacant-eyed, chanting strange phrases sometimes difficult to distinguish from actual speech, and immersed in tarot cards and astrological signs, Maureen is a quicksand pit of emotional turmoil. While Carol and Chuck slosh in the germ-ridden flora, Maureen is sitting in the bus and staring into space, taking the audience on a mental journey consisting purely of metaphor. She begins this ride by wandering into the swamp and finding a sacrificial stone altar. A woman in a white robe appears, telling Maureen to accept the Scepter of Apollo. Maureen accepts it in more ways than one by writhing naked on the altar for a few minutes. The audience is then subjected to a multitude of images, metaphors, and flashbacks that seek to explain why Maureen is disturbed as well as how Carol and Chuck began their own prospective journeys. Describing these situations would be the spoilers of the film, so, without giving away any details, I'll just say all three of them suffered from the top-tier confusions of any young person being thrust into adulthood: religion, politics, overbearing parents, mistrust and/or betrayal of authority figures, and hormones. How these images are conveyed must be experienced to grant you any real understanding of what might be happening in these young people's lives. Maureen eventually finds herself sinking so deep that she turns to self-mutilation, forcing Chuck to attempt to understand her in coming to her aid. He subtly avoided Maureen as much as possible by spending time with free-spirited Carol. Carol is easy and Chuck is simple until the more complicated Maureen displays a quality of real distress that turns his attention.It sounds simple, but Pick-Up displays these situations through elaborate editing. At times, the only way to know what is real is that these young people are in the middle of nowhere and waiting for Chuck's boss, a jarring presence on the bus's mobile phone, to try to locate them. Maureen's use of paganism to combat religious symbols might lead one to think the boss is God himself, interrupting to ask questions to which only He knows the answer because the audience is given no glimpse into where His conversation began. We don't know Chuck's relationship with him, and the boss seems to be the only connection to the civilized world as Chuck, Carol and Maureen question their desire to return to that world at all.What stands out most to me is how much is open to interpretation. You walk in with the basics of an R-rated mid-70s drive-in movie: good-looking people take their clothes off and do things in front of the camera while "peace and love" act as the subliminal message, but then you take a detour into metaphysics and have to look for clues to remind you what is reality. I have seen reviews that claim this film was not made for a sober audience, but the film itself is sobering. I would wager anyone watching this movie on drugs at the time suffered a bit of a freak-out. Yes, some scenes play out like what I am to believe an acid trip is supposed to resemble, but I find it hard to believe anyone under the influence could watch this without having a few walls shattered. Perhaps I read too deeply into the symbolism in this film, but that is part of its beauty. Anyone is welcome to make as much or as little about anything, applying different meanings to each of the symbols the film throws at them. There is little doubt, however, even with the distractions of bare bodies, that anyone can walk away from Pick-Up without wondering what really happened between these three young people in the swamp.

swinggold This is essentially a movie with no story. What starts out as a road trip movie turns into some bad dada-esque, head trip. Carol and Maureen, two sexy and carefree girls, are hanging out in Florida out in a field near the highway. Along comes Chuck, a good-looking California surfer stud whose driving a RV (they were called mobile homes back then). He offers them a ride and they can't resist. Carol takes to Chuck immediately and flirts with him while they travel. Meanwhile, in the back of the trailer, the dark and mysterious Maureen is deep into her tarot cards and astrology. She's foreseeing danger ahead. Instead of any real kind of story, what we get is Chuck and Carol running naked through a field and having lots of sex while Maureen looks on envious of the couple. But then eventually she gets her turn with the stud too. Interspersed in all this sex is lots of trippy, psychedelic imagery, groovy music, nude women, sinister clowns and other confusion. It's perfect for a drive-in where hardly anyone is paying attention anyway cuz most of the audience was making out or socializing or a lot of stoners will get a trip watching. Otherwise, this is a complete waste of time unless you want to catch some T&A.

Tommy Nelson Pick-up is a low budget 70s sexploitation film, and what is one to expect from a 70s sexploitation film but a mildly entertaining plot and a lot of sex. Well, though the latter was featured quite prominently, it is very hard to nit pick the story, as there is none to be seen. This is no more than a random trip in a bus with a guy and two girls, and the crazy happenings that go on.Two hippie chicks, Carol (Jill Senter) and Maureen (Gini Eastwood), are meditating in a field, meet a crazy hippie guy, Chuck (Alan Long), who has this nifty bus. They go on what seems to be a spiritual adventure involving seeing things that aren't there, and running around naked through a field. The climax of the film is so mind blowingly stupid, you wouldn't believe someone actually penned this awful "story"(?).The main problem with the movie is it makes no sense, and has no story. At least if it had a nonsensical story that would be something, but this movie just doesn't try to tell us anything. It's just about some young people and their sexy naked adventures. At times, this movie can be extremely slow too, and it gets boring. It seems the only reason anyone would enjoy this film, is for it's large quantities of nudity and sexuality, but even that can't keep people interested through the many lulls.This is a fun flick if you like bad '70s cinema, but otherwise avoid this strange and silly movie.My rating: * out of ****. 75 mins. R for nudity/sexuality, and language.