Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

This film is very notable in that it was written in part by Roger Ebert. Yes, THAT Roger Ebert. It should be noted that this film was something he worked on rather early in his career and I think looking back, he doesn't think too highly of it. It does make me wish Ebert had worked on more movies himself, because it would simply be great to watch a movie made by the most famous movie critic. Anyway, this movie itself is just okay. I admit that the plot just seems to wander around for awhile.There's lots of seemingly random scenes of people dancing and singing. This movie is still very '70s and it's starting to make me realize cult films become reflective of the times. There are even some interesting points raised about sexuality. I do kind of find myself rooting for the characters. It's just that it's too wacky to follow that well and not good enough to recommend, but Ebert tried. Now let's see a movie Leonard Maltin worked on! **1/2

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.

Released in 1970 and directed by Russ Meyer, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" satirizes the previous film, scripted by none other than Roger Ebert. It stars Dolly Read, Cynthia Myers & Marcia McBroom as an all-girl rock band, who move to Los Angeles to make it in the music biz. The group is so well-received that they turn the head of eccentric rock producer Z-Man (John Lazar) who becomes their Svengali-style manager and changes their name to The Carrie Nations, all to the consternation of their small-time manager, who's a Greg Brady lookalike (David Gurian). Can the girls survive the pitfalls that come with the debauched rock lifestyle? The cast is killer, highlighted by the three protagonists, especially the underrated Read. Also worthy of note, besides those cited above, are Michael Blodgett, who's character takes an interest in the singer (Read); Phyllis Davis as her hip aunt; Edy Williams as an oversexed porn star; Erica Gavin who takes a dubious interest in Myers' character; Duncan McLeod as the aunt's sleazy & greedy financial adviser; Charles Napier as her former-beau; Henry Rowland as Z-Man's employee who (I guess) likes to dress-up as a Nazi; and Harrison Page & James Iglehart who vie for the attentions of the foxy drummer (McBroom).The movie telegraphs right out of the gate that it's a joke and not to be taken seriously, like the first film (at least, like they TRIED to do with the first film). The best thing about "Beyond" is that it's the absolute apogee of the late 60s (being shot in '69) and everything that went with it — the overindulgence in drugs, "free" sex, libertine parties, go-go dancing, rock and general debauchedness. There are several noteworthy women, with cutie Read the arguable frontrunner. Also, some of the tunes the band plays are actually good and catchy. All these factors make for a fun, entertaining flick, which explains how it quickly became a cult film.Yet its quality is brought down by needless nudity and tame sex scenes that strapped it with a NC-17 rating and limited its access to the masses, not to mention its general appeal, which could've been easily avoided by wisely trimming down a few scenes. There's also too much fruity twaddle for my tastes and the "story" seems to be just one "wild party" after another, which gets redundant. Still, "Beyond" is the undeniable pinnacle of late 60's flicks, even though it can't be taken seriously for a moment, which is actually fitting.The film runs 109 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles, California.GRADE: B-

I didn't know much about this movie going into it, except what kinds of films Russ Meyer was known for. The story is about an all girl rock group and their rise to stardom. Although it's been said that this movie was meant to be a parody, it seems to play it straight for most of the duration.The central character would probably be the lead singer, who has a powerful Joplin-like voice. Her entrance to the big time begins with discovering her long lost aunt, who brings her to a party where she meets the right people. Everyone involved quickly let things get out of control, until everyone's lives are turned upside down.There is a bit of 60's counterculture involved with lots of drugs and pills and swinging parties. The dialog is very hippie-dippy, and the ending was very heavy handed. If it was meant to be a satire, I would consider it a failure in that nothing about it struck me as satirical. Taken straight, I still don't find much to recommend. 4 out of 10.