Fresh and Exciting

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Before I watched this on YouTube, I saw segments on the site of the only previous movie that starred the comedy team of Dan Rowan and Dick Martin-Once Upon a Horse from 1958. What I saw there wasn't very funny though I'll wait until I've seen the whole thing before I review it here. This second one-which they made 11 years later-is mostly lame to the point that I was ready to give this one star...until the scene in which the Julie Newmar character convinces Rowan that she can turn into a dog before a dog shows up before Dan comes back. The ending scene involving lots of shooting was also pretty amusing. Otherwise, I was bemused by how lame most of the punchlines were. Maybe it should have had some cameos from the co-stars of their "Laugh-In" TV show from that time like Ruth Buzzi, Arte Johnson, or Goldie Hawn who herself was making her first starring picture called Cactus Flower during this time. Verdict: The Maltese Bippy is nice to look at, but nothing worth talking about otherwise.

Another late 60's entry into Hollywood's attempt to answer the question, What kind of movies/TV shows do these drug-addled kids want to see? Older producers never did really figure it out. The Maltese Bippy is a cross between Head (by the Monkees), an episode of Laugh-In, and any horrible "comedy team meets danger" movie. Poor Rowan & Martin. Born in the early 20's with no chance to engage in all the free love and drugs they saw going on around them in the 60's and 70's. They tried to get in on it with hair dye, bad rugs, sideburns and plaid sport coats (and in the case of Rowan, even taking up the Hefner-like pipe).You don't see Laugh-In in reruns for a reason. I enjoyed the show as a kid. But it was highly topical and the humor just doesn't translate well into the 21st century. Not a lot to irritate anyone in The Maltese Bippy, but it's all been done before, better, by others.Much like Bob Hope movies, you just can't see many of today's kids getting into it. Then again, I don't think anyone will be rushing to watch Napoleon Dynamite in 30 or 40 years either.

This was the big screen attempt at taking the success of Rowan and Martin from TV to Film. I know it failed as a mainstream hit, but it succeeds wonderfully as broad retro camp. I liked this film overall but it is not one you will watch over and over. It is a one shot watch, maybe once more if you with a good friend who really loves camp or laugh in. This is no classic in the way that Zorro the gay blade or Abbot and Costello were. If this were 1979, I might say pass on this film but just getting the feel of sixties, even a g-rated version, is a lot of fun now nearly forty years latter.For the record, vampires are mentioned in the movie but do not appear, not even actors who are pretending to be people pretending to be vampires. The fact that in dream sequence one character dresses like Dracula does not merit calling this a vampire/werewolf flick. The vampire angle was played up in way that comedy horror tries to tell the mainstream viewers: "hey this film has stuff like vampires/werewolves/zombies/mummies" Trying to tell people who don't know the difference between a zombie and a mummy that a flick has" werewolves and vampires and stuff" rarely works. One comment said this was neither fish nor fowl. That is the biggest problem of the movie. It borrows from comedy/horror/mystery and buddy flicks in such a way that it has no real focus. The mystery is not that mysterious, the horror not remotely scary, the romance angle weak (they really should have played that one up. If the movie ended with a couple walking off happily ever after THAT would appeal to mainstream people much more than the4th wall breaking so much in the last 5 minutes. This is the next real weak point after the lack of focus: the fourth wall breaking as the ending. It reminded me of The Holy Grail when writers obviously gifted enough to write a passable ending decide to break the 4th wall when they could not come up with a great ending.I did not like the ending...but it reminded me of dating....the fun of the relationship was worth the crappy ending.

This is essentially an updated Abbott and Costello film for 1969 with Rowan and Martin standing in for Bud and Lou. The plot has the boys wandering around a "haunted" house looking for hidden jewels while trying to remain alive and avoid "werewolves" and "vampires". Its a weird mix of comedy horror and mystery put together in a psychedelic blender. Its very much of the time, and of Laugh-In with the brand of humor that was a huge hit on TV interlaced into a murder mystery. Forgive me I have no idea how to explain this movie except that its a bunch of very good actors being very silly, I mean where else can you see Fritz Weaver channeling Bela Lugosi for giggles? The humor is uneven, with some of the jokes dating badly to the point that unless you lived in 1969 you won't get the joke. Its an odd film. I don't know if I can really recommend it, though if you like Laugh-In you stand a good shot at enjoying this 90 minute fluff ball. (though I do have to point out I grew to dislike Dan Rowan's character a great deal since he was much too mean spirited and sleazy for my tastes)