I think the only reason I am about to say what I am about to say is that Miss McClanahan recently died, as I would hate to have her read this. The idea of having this actress play a stripper isn't much more realistic than having Phyllis Diller or Hattie McDaniel play the role. Now I am not saying she was unattractive but she looked like a very ordinary housewife in her 30s--and NOT a lady to bump and grind in a burlesque house. Now she was not the only inappropriately cast lady, as the strippers they did have perform in the film (often for absolutely no reason) were among the least attractive strippers ever filmed--and fortunately the kept on their clothes in this far from titillating film.
Aside from showing a lot of strippers (to the detriment of the plot), the film is about a scum-bag who is planning on a robbery--and Rue (here playing an 'innocent stripper' named Sandy) gets pulled into this big score. Along the way, she does some exotic dancing and is also molested. This is a VERY creepy part of the film and I truly doubt if this was really her in the scene. That's because the entire time the creep gropes her and whips out her breast, her face is covered--like they added this scene (possibly years later) to 'spice up the film'. In addition, because the strippers DON'T take off their clothes or turn their backs to the camera when their tops are off, you really have to assume that the brief nude scene was added later as it just didn't fit the overall film. And, it's not the least bit sexy--just very, very creepy--with the same recording of a guy saying 'yes...yes' again and again and again (uggh!).
As for the armored car robbery, it was interesting enough to watch but done on a shoestring budget. There is absolutely no dialog--just a cheap jazz score and it seems to go on and on for a very long period of time--like filler. Following the robbery, the guy offers to take her away with him. What is she to do? He seems like a nice guy and she likes him...but he's also a thief. What will happen next and will anyone really care?
Overall, there isn't a lot going for this film other than a chance to see McClanahan embarrass herself in a grade-Z film (and that might just be enough for some viewers). The production values are very low, the film is heavily padded and it has the look of an Ed Wood production and no better. While it's not the worst film I've seen in recent weeks, this is hardly a glowing endorsement.
By the way, while the release date is 1968, the clothes, hairstyles and cars look early to mid-1960s--though McClanahan still looks to be about 35 in the film. My assumption is that this sat on the shelf for a few years and then was finally released in '68.
Aside from showing a lot of strippers (to the detriment of the plot), the film is about a scum-bag who is planning on a robbery--and Rue (here playing an 'innocent stripper' named Sandy) gets pulled into this big score. Along the way, she does some exotic dancing and is also molested. This is a VERY creepy part of the film and I truly doubt if this was really her in the scene. That's because the entire time the creep gropes her and whips out her breast, her face is covered--like they added this scene (possibly years later) to 'spice up the film'. In addition, because the strippers DON'T take off their clothes or turn their backs to the camera when their tops are off, you really have to assume that the brief nude scene was added later as it just didn't fit the overall film. And, it's not the least bit sexy--just very, very creepy--with the same recording of a guy saying 'yes...yes' again and again and again (uggh!).
As for the armored car robbery, it was interesting enough to watch but done on a shoestring budget. There is absolutely no dialog--just a cheap jazz score and it seems to go on and on for a very long period of time--like filler. Following the robbery, the guy offers to take her away with him. What is she to do? He seems like a nice guy and she likes him...but he's also a thief. What will happen next and will anyone really care?
Overall, there isn't a lot going for this film other than a chance to see McClanahan embarrass herself in a grade-Z film (and that might just be enough for some viewers). The production values are very low, the film is heavily padded and it has the look of an Ed Wood production and no better. While it's not the worst film I've seen in recent weeks, this is hardly a glowing endorsement.
By the way, while the release date is 1968, the clothes, hairstyles and cars look early to mid-1960s--though McClanahan still looks to be about 35 in the film. My assumption is that this sat on the shelf for a few years and then was finally released in '68.