RavenGlamDVDCollector I'm one of those "Dangerous Babes" mooks, and I was holding this title back as more of a treat than most of the others, but when I settled in for that YELLOW HAIR AND THE FORTRESS OF GOLD thing, I was so aghast at the sight of that sorry effort, I decided I was gonna watch something worthwhile after all. And this one sat there conveniently at the ready on the disk. With no fanfare, proceeded, grumpy mood. Well, quickly saw it doesn't disappoint. I'd never heard about these movies before (save one, my reason for purchase) and I am just relieved that they're not all a buncha tripe. Look, I don't mind (that much) about dated movies and low production values and yammering scripts BUT DO GIVE ME DECENT PEOPLE ON-SCREEN and this one has it. Chestnut mare Susan Romen is way way way up there as a modern-day looking girl in a movie that is now almost fifty years old, so that says a lot. Of course it's dated material (the hippie bit, and look at the hairstyle of Mary Mary), but it looks good and Susan is just great! It's a small movie, but far more likable than so many of the junk in the rest of the "Dangerous Babes" set. I would agree with the complaint that the drug use is overly long, shee-ite, sure looks like a how-to guide for beginners. But if you like pretty actresses the way I do, then there's a whole lot of watching for you here.Of course, the story is trite. What obviously happened in real life is totally noteworthy, though. Old Uncle George wrote a script he knew he was gonna direct. He cast himself in the lead role, and arranged himself an adventure. Moto cross motorcycles, a plane, a boat on the high sea, and, a-ha, wait for it, but of course, yes, being in bed with a young, lissome, nubile, perfectly-formed, long-legged, long-haired, utterly naked girl.Do I blame the old guy?No. Of course not. Oh, I understand. Of course I do.And it's really all kinda sweet. There's not one vaguely-disgusting thing in it, though the prudes would no doubt insist to disagree.One bad thing though. And it's very sad. Susan Romen didn't become a star. She seems to have gone into hiding. To this day. Well, it was the Early Seventies, whatcha expect? Today, in something like this (just better made), she'd have been a star. Back then, it was scandalous. And a scandal back then was more like tar-and- feather time, well, exaggerating (though not completely), but you get my drift.If the movie deserves a bad rep, it shouldn't be for the sex scenes, but for the haphazard filming as it rushes along, the further it goes, meandering about with dirt bikes, and the hopelessly inept wooden acting by the old guy himself (just hanging on for the hot chick) and that main baddie who comes across as a bit of a tortoise playing the part of a sea-lion.As for Annik Borel, another reviewer is excited about her, and, yeah, cute, with long, long legs, but so absolutely disconcertingly cold and stern-eyed in that sex scene, she is obviously more suited for print modeling.But I can tell you, it's one helluva lot better than YELLOW HAIR AND THE FORTRESS OF GOLD. And guys would crawl over searing tarmac strewn with broken glass to be with Susan Romen as their very own Candy.

Leofwine_draca Another poor exploitation movie from Crown International Pictures. This one's about a tired, hen-pecked old middle-aged guy who falls for the young girl babysitting his kids, and begins an affair with her. The movie was shot by Don Henderson, not the actor, and is a virtual reprise of the same director's film of the previous year, THE BABYSITTER, allowing for some self-referencing moments. Overall though it's a kind of sad, wish-fulfilment type film with a bit of a grubby edge to it.Sadly, as with a lot of Crown fare, this one has dated a lot and not in a good way. The film just sort of dawdles along while the characters take drugs and indulge in various pleasurable activities which don't transmit to the viewer. There's a lot of talk and none of it is very interesting. It's clunky throughout, performed by a cast of low-level actors who fail to make much of an impression, and never as controversial as it wants to be. Saying that, the director does manage to cram in a fair few nude and sex scenes for his young starlet, so WEEKEND WITH THE BABYSITTER does have a requisite sleazy feel to it.

NickStricharchuk Weekend With the Babysitter : George E. Carrey stars as Jim, a well-off B-movie director who falls for his kids' babysitter. It's not hard to understand the attraction: his wife, a washed up actress-turned-junkie, is pretty damn irritating. Plus, the babysitter gives him some tips on the ridiculous script he's working on--a motorcycle gang/hippie movie. Trouble mounts while the director and babysitter are exploring free-wheeling good times (under the guise of doing movie research) when Jim's wife gets in too deep with some drug dealers by offering up her husband's fancy boat to complete a drug deal in exchange for another fix. What's funny about this film is that its predecessor, The Babysitter (1969), also stars George E. Carrey in what amounts to the same part. In this one, George E. Carrey is credited as co-writer of the film's plot. Funnier still is the babysitter, played here by Susan Romen, is named Candy, which is the namesake of the earlier film's babysitter as well, as depicted by Patricia Wymer. The most "meta" connection between the two is that, when Candy review's Jim's new script, she criticizes the dialogue, noting that "people don't talk this way." For all we know, she could have been reading the script of the earlier Babysitter film--although it's amusing to note that the Candys in both films enjoy saying "Ciao, baby!" This one is mostly entertaining, although the 1969 film is better by a thin margin.

Wizard-8 Despite the suggestive title, and the fact that it was produced by Crown-International Pictures (the makers of a number of sleazy drive-in movies), WWTB is far from the sleazefest that you may think it will be. In fact, the movie for the most part seems to be making an effort to be pretty tasteful. This may make the movie sound pretty boring, but the movie manages to be surprisingly entertaining all the same.To start with, the movie's male protagonist is not a selfish dirty old man who has the "seven year itch" and lusts after his family's babysitter. He's actually made to be pretty sympathetic early on. It's clearly shown that his marriage has problems, and while some of these problems may come from him, we see that the majority of the strife comes from his wife. (Also, we see that he has been making efforts to improve the relationship, but they haven't been working.) Then when he subsequently finds himself with the babysitter and starts doing things with her, having an affair seems the last thing on his mind for a considerable amount of time. As well, it's shown that when the affair starts, the babysitter does as much - if not more - to start the affair.Also a pleasant surprise is how our protagonist interacts with the friends of his babysitter. He doesn't talk down to them, seems genuinely interested in them, and freely tries their activities. Also pleasing is that these same young people don't seem to have a problem with him being much older than them. They are very friendly to him, and gladly teach him of his ways. There is an underlying sweetness to the movie, even with the inevitable nudity and sex that eventually arrives.In fact, the movie is actually very dialogue-driven for its first half, and while the dialogue may not be up to Shakespeare, it has a natural inviting feeling that keeps your attention. The dialogue makes these characters interesting, giving them quirks that you don't often see in movies like this. (Such as with the sympathetic junkie seen in the subplot with the wife.) The movie is far from perfect; the last hour has some clunky and somewhat boring bits, and there seems to be no firm resolution between our protagonist and his babysitter (or with his wife, for that matter.) But I still highly recommend this to those who like drive-in movies. Hard to believe this was directed by "Billy Jack" himself!