Michael_Elliott She Freak (1967) 1/2 (out of 4) Exploitation master David F. Friedman was a big fan of Tod Browning's FREAKS and decided to remake it but the end results are quite horrid for several reasons. As in the original film, we're warned about a "freak" who was once normal but before seeing her we get the backstory. Claire Brennen plays a small town waitress who gets a job in a traveling sideshow where she decides to go after the big boss man, which eventually costs him his life. The carnival sideshow freaks decide to take revenge. This is a very painful 85-minute movie to sit through because it moves extremely slow and after a while you can't help but want to turn the thing off. There are a few good moments but there's no denying that the greatest thing about this movie is the fact that it makes FREAKS look even better than it already is. It's funny that FREAKS was hidden from the public for decades because of its controversial nature and it's even funnier to think that this film here is a lot tamer than that 1932 film. The only "freaks" on display here is a sword swallower as well as a woman who puts a snake in her mouth. The rest don't show up to the final scene. The entire film centers on Brennen as she never gets what she wants. It's just too boring. We get countless scenes of the circus being put together, which is fun for a minute but this film just drags the scenes out. What does work is Brennen who is fairly good for this type of film and of course that ending when we see what's happened to her. The make up job was quite good and makes for a smile. Character actor Bill McKinney made his debut here.

ferbs54 Opening as it does with an encomium for Bobby Cohn, one of the leaders of the North American Carnival Industry, 1967's "She Freak" at times comes off more as a tribute to life on the midway than a grisly horror film. In it, we are introduced to Jade Cochran (lamely portrayed by Claire Brennen), whose waitressing job in a jerkwater greasy spoon is so dispiriting that her new gig cleaning tables at a traveling carnival seems like a step up. Jade soon sets her sights on the owner of the carnival's freak show, despite her aversion to those poor people, and with her curvy figure, toothy smile and blonde good looks (indeed, Brennen here looks very much like the young Joni Mitchell), has no trouble roping him in. But anyone who has seen Tod Browning's 1932 masterpiece "Freaks" and knows of Olga Baclanova's fate in it (or who has seen the trailer reel that precedes every movie from Something Weird) can guess what happens next. "She Freak" is only 83 minutes long, but at least half its running time consists of padded footage of roustabouts setting up the carnival or tearing it down, or of customers walking around or Jade wandering about. Unlike "Freaks," which shocked and amazed audiences with its large cast of real-life biological sports, "She Freak" offers basically only one of "Nature's mistakes" in the form of Shorty (!), a Stetsoned little person. Still, somehow, the picture manages to barely hold one's interest, and features beautiful color photography (well captured on this surprisingly pristine-looking DVD from those miracle workers at Something Weird) and even some interesting directorial touches from Byron Mabe. Basically, though, the film is junk. Viewers interested in seeing a superior updating of "Freaks" would be better off checking out the British film "The Freakmaker" (1973), which is much more, uh, freaky and a lot more fun.

Vornoff-3 _She Freak_ is certainly one of the more accessible of Friedman's post-HG Lewis movies. Obviously intended to target drive-ins, it lacks the more objectionable (and usually dull) `adult' material of his other pictures, and spends more time on the plot. Other strengths include actors that know their lines and location footage (at a carnival) that offers a bit more visual diversity than is usual in the extreme low-budget 60's field.That said, however, the film is deeply flawed and far from a classic. It is frequently billed as a `remake' of Tod Browning's _Freaks_, which is true to an extent, but not in the way one would hope. Clearly the writer took the concept of a selfish carnival girl who is punished by the freaks for her ill-treatment of one of their number and ran with it. Unfortunately, it did not inspire him to particular heights. The most notable difference between this film and its inspiration is the aspects of carny life upon which they focus. _Freaks_ focused on the title characters – showing their lives and loves, how sideshow freaks were people with feelings who banded together against a world that despised them. _She Freak_, by contrast, seems mostly concerned with the people behind the scenes: the concessioners and `ride boys' and the Grips (or whatever their called in carny talk) that set up and tear down the big show. Something like 10 minutes of footage is sweaty guys working with tent poles, so if that's your thing…As far as sideshow acts are concerned: there's a coochy-dancer (who goes `as far as the law allows,' evidently in a bible-belt state), a sword-swallower, a snake charmer and a fortune-teller. Even the one real `freak' of the film, the unfortunate `Shorty' the midget, gets very little screen time and never performs whatever act he is supposed to have.The other glaring flaw is the character development. The main character, Jade, starts the movie as a bitch, then is re-introduced as a sympathetic character with high hopes, then spends the rest of the movie bouncing back and forth. It got so bad that I started to regard the movie as a Jekyll-and-Hyde tale, with the `bad' Jade progressively screwing up the aspirations of the `good' Jade. But, unlike Stevenson's story, there is no explanation for Jade's dual personality, and no way to predict which side of her would emerge. A more interesting take, had the writer and director been up to the challenge, would have been to portray Jade as starting out nice, but gradually becoming `jaded' (sorry, couldn't help that pun) over the course of events and hard knocks in the carnival, until she went too far and had to be destroyed. Frankly, the `crime' for which she is punished (firing Shorty) does not fit the punishment she earns, and there are other characters in the film that have far more justifiable grievances than the freaks do.One interesting hallmark of the low-budget Friedman approach deserves note. The extended silent sequences, in which the audience is treated to musical montages of images that are supposed to suggest action. Aside from the aforementioned set-up, tear-down sequences, the entire courtship of Jade and her prospective husband is handled in this way. Up until his last two or three scenes, pretty much the only thing this actor says is `Hello.' On the whole, this is actually a good thing. Overall, it's worth it for exploitation completists, and is a watchable film, but not generally recommended.

jt1999 Complete, total crap. Truly awful. I'd rather ingest my own excrement than sit through it again. Redefines the meaning of the word "bad" (Leonard Pynth- Garnell never endured this). I'd say that watching it was cruel and unusual punishment, but I don't want to give cruelty a bad name. Seriously, we're talking Amateur Hour at the Film School for Living Brain Donors from frame one. The story begins about ten minutes before it ends -- and even then, nearly every shot crosses the line or is awful in some other way. A pathetic, pointless, incompetent waste of celluloid. Other than that, not too bad.