Purely Joyful Movie!

Lack of good storyline.

Best movie of this year hands down!

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Moderately interesting exploiter featuring one of my favorite swingin' '60s chicks, smokin' hot Francine York (Space Monster, Doll Squad), and bottom-of-the barrel auteur Ray Dennis Steckler (Incredibly Strange Creatures, Thrill Killers), as well as a few other hangers-on from the Steckler/Arch Hall axis in the cast and crew. The time-worn plot of York and her ex-con hubby being kidnapped by a gang of hot-rodding thugs and forced to reveal the location of a stash of bank-robbery loot buried in the desert years earlier provides the framework for a lot of tough-guy bravado, a "chickie run", and even a quickly aborted attempted rape. Steckler's Preacher Man spouts ridiculous hipsterisms like "insides-ville" for "inside", Edmund Tontini defines "wooden" as the oddly named gang leader King Tut, and Jonathon Karle's ludicrous turn as psycho-nutcase Jick (who has his name in huge white letters on the back of his jacket) really makes you appreciate Arch Hall Jr.'s nuanced performance as Charlie Tibbs in The Sadist. There's a lot more talking than peeling out going on, and several of the sports cars are traded in for Jeeps halfway through, but I was mildly amused and never bored throughout.But what really fascinates me about this movie are the number of parallels it shares with Russ Meyer's Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, released three years later: 1) the Southwest desert location, 2) the arrival of the gang in three sports cars (and a couple of jeeps), 3) the search for a rumored hidden bankroll, 4) kidnapping of female by leather-clad gang, 5) murder of female's significant other by gang, 6) repeated escape attempts necessitating recapture of kidnapped female due to negligence of gang members, 7) the chicken run, and 8) even one specific library music cue that is shared by both movies! Much of this could be coincidence due to the clichéd nature of the story, but I couldn't help noticing the numerous similarities to FPKK as I watched Wild Ones. Is it possible that Meyer saw this movie somewhere and thought, "What if . . . ?" We'll probably never know, but I just thought I'd throw it out there for exploitation fans to ponder.Sinister Cinema's DVD-R of this movie is not spectacular looking (the contrast varies from shot to shot at times, apparently due to unequal processing of the A and B rolls used to print the film) but still quite watchable, far better than your typical Alpha Video transfer. I'd give it a "B". There is currently no other available option, so check out the Sinister site and order a few more titles while you're at it. Greg Luce is a great guy and is helping to preserve and disseminate hundreds of public domain movies that would never be seen by film fans otherwise, especially given the supremacy of the almighty profit margin by the multinational entertainment conglomerates.

I rather like this film. Sure, it's cheesy and made "on the cheap", but it does have an engaging storyline and some fairly good performances to it's credit.Essentially, it's a gangster movie (with a hipster-like dialog just for fun).The best performance awards go to Robert Blair and Francine York. Both should have gone on to long careers, but didn't, for some reason.Blair was so good at playing "bad" that....spoilers ahead.....I was disappointed when he turned out to be the good guy. With his looks and sex appeal, it was hard to imagine that Hazel held a torch for her aging, out of shape husband. Once Bill turned into Tom he was less appealing or interesting, but he certainly made me believe he was "bad" in the first half of the movie.York gave a fine performance as the pretty young female caught in the web of deceit her husband and the others had devised. Through it all, she remains the one you're pulling for.This film was the debut of Ray Dennis Steckler and he played his part well. I loved his final scene.......spoilers ahead....as he lay dying he laughed with smug satisfaction right before cringing and dying. Classic! His was not a big part, but he showed signs of a real talent what few times he was on the screen.All the actors were at least good in their roles and the movie kept my attention, despite some silly scenes.....Spoilers ahead...For instance, Hazel is tortured with no less than a lizard! Really! Now, had it been a Gila monster, I might have believed that she would be scared, but a common lizard? No, she was a native of the desert, and she would have most likely laughed or wanted to hold it than feel fear. King should have threatened to carve up her pretty face with a knife. That I would have certainly believed.The film leaves one fact open to speculation. It might have seemed a glaring hole, but instead gives the film a uniqueness.....spoiler ahead...who killed Hazel's husband? Me, I would have liked to find out that it was Tom/Bill, who was now totally smitten with Hazel, and wanted the husband out of the way....the "bad" guy who turns out to be "good", but has become "bad" after all due to lust for the leading lady. Hehe. Either way, we never know the truth.Don't expect the film to be anything more than it is, and you'll probably enjoy it.

A super obscure z-grade crime thriller from 1962, with a budget to match its low rating. Also known as "Hell Drivers" or "Drivers to Hell." Copy from the DVD box: "After serving many years in the state pen, Duke Walker (Sydney Mason) is getting out. He'll be heading to a little truck stop and diner in the southern California desert, where his sweetheart, Hazel, (Francine York) is waiting for him. Not far from there lies his reward for biding his time: $250,000 in cash, lying safe in its hiding place amongst the rocks and cactus. Duke can almost taste the good life...but he's not the only one. It seems he may have been a bit too chatty in prison, and now a thug named King Tut (Edmund Tontini) and his gang are very interested to learn where Duke has planted all that cabbage. With stakes this high, things are likely to get very dangerous and deadly!" Not mentioned there are Hazel's most recent "boyfriend," Bill, who's been hanging around the diner/motel for a couple of months now. He doesn't take kindly to Duke strolling back into Hazel's life after being gone for 12 years.Let's also take a moment to mention a familiar name/face to Grade Z movie fans, Ray Dennis Steckler, appropriately weaselly as one of King Tut's stooges, "Preacher", who has an unhealthy obsession with his MG rag top. This is one of only three acting credits in a film he did not direct.Speaking of directing, I was delighted to find that director Rudloph Cusumano also directed another lovable crap-fest I have reviewed here on the IMDb, "Jive Turkey," a dire blaxploiter, as well as the legendary "Varan The Unbelievable." Interesting directing resume there.Anyway, this film is pretty awful, technically. I doubt its budget was as high as that suitcase full of money they're looking for. It has the worst day-for-night shooting since Ed Wood's Plan Nine From Outer Space, and some of the set-ups are so static that I had balloons stuck to my TV set(ha!). At least there's a bit of driving around the desert to liven things up once in a while.The writing is no piece of cake either. Duke and Hazel go out into the desert to "go camping," when suddenly they are menaced and attacked by King Tut and his goons. Plenty of ripe, tough-talking dialog ensues, but the plot unfolds pretty predictably.*** SPOILERS ON THE ROAD!! *** We all know what's going to happen: the bad guys turn against each other with greed in their hearts, and everybody that deserves to get killed does. About the only twist, revealed at the very end, when the police show up, is the fact the Bill isn't really Bill, he's a private eye named Tom trying to track down the missing money for the insurance company. He and Hazel go off into the sunset together.*** SPOILERS OVER *** Acting isn't too bad, actually, for this type of cheap-jack chaff. The bad guys are appropriately slimy, back stabbing and two-timing, and the female lead is, I guess, appropriately passive for back in the day, though it's disheartening to realize such a limp, ineffectual femme could be believable only four years prior to my birth. But times do change. Sure, she does plenty of arguing and yelling, but she could have escaped at several junctures, or fired guns, but does not do so.SUMMARY: Only fans of low-budget schlock need apply. You might find some enjoyment if you're an Ed Wood or Ray Dennis Steckler fan, or maybe Coleman Francis. Budding MSTies will enjoy. Otherwise, stay away.