"The Hollywood Strangler Meets The Skid Row Slasher" (catchy title!) is probably the most plot-free movie I've ever seen. Some dude kills a prostitute, some lady kills a hobo, back to the dude and he's still killing prostitutes, back to the lady and she's still killing hobos, back to the dude...well, you get the idea. None of it goes anywhere, it's like you're stuck in an endless loop. Every death scene also looks exactly the same, particularly in the skid row slasher parts. And yet, somehow someway, I didn't hate this completely. There's something about it here and there that's strangely entertaining. Maybe it's the fact that it was all recorded without sound (in 1979!?), which leaves plenty of gaps that have to be filled with the strangler's inadequate narration. This narration is completely stream of consciousness and makes absolutely no sense. After he smothers some chick with a pillow he quips "wonder if she saw that movie Pillow Talk". All the other narration is 120% serious to the max, so that line just downright broke me. I also loved the absurdity of the book store scenes: personally I've been drunk at a lot of different places, but getting hammered at the book store? That was the party place in the 1970s? It also helps the hilarity that the book store has about two dozen books, maximum. Maybe I was also slightly entertained because this was made with the dirtiest, sleaziest, cheapest 16mm film stock available, which I'm just a sucker for. I could watch anything (ANYTHING) made with that kind of film, but I won't give examples on what anything may include. This movie is really bad and boring, but it's so bad and boring that I became hypnotized with it. Save yourself that trouble and don't watch it.
30 Reviews
When Greek Meets Greek and they consider possible love...
theowinthrop30 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When Charlie Chaplin made his great black comedy of murders, "Monsieur Verdoux" he planned a sequence where Henri Verdoux contacts a woman through the matrimonial ads of a newspaper, only to discover she is a female serial killer for profit. When they find out each other's true vocation it becomes a race to kill the other, that Verdoux barely wins. However, this sequence was never in the finished film. One wonders how it would have been handled by Chaplin. I suspect it might have been good.
Ray Steckler was nowhere near the Chaplin class of director and film creator. He is nearer Ed Wood, but Wood had that saving grace of having some concept or idea that was original but that he could not bring to the screen due to poor talent. Steckler was basically an opportunist who shot films that were violent and full of quasi-pornography. He never could do a nude sequence of interest. He just could show sleazy situations. It was enough to attract an audience, but its not cinematic art at it's best (Chaplin) or it's worst (Wood).
The plot of this film is fairly simple: Johnny Click (that is his name) is a photographer played by Peter Agostino. He has been married but the marriage is now over, and he is a bitter man due to that. He looks at most of the women he meets as tramps and prostitutes, and since he is in Hollywood he does see many of them on the street corners. With a better script and direction it could be the negative version of Julia Roberts-Richard Gere's "Pretty Women", the street nightmare of the whores that Roberts wants to get away from. But this is Stekler, and he concentrates on the sensational that will make the film a ticket seller to a certain audience that just likes sensation. I will give him one credit though - his shots of the streets of Hollywood are done well, and the more to his credit is the cheapness of his film equipment: Steckler made this film as a silent film with a shoulder held camera. Later (at prodding of distributors) Agostino does do some narrative.
Agostino contacts whores and offers to do photos with them as models, showing their "skills" for his camera. And we see him do in all these poor girls by strangling them. We never see any police investigation (it would have meant a more involved script with more acting). Agostino sees every victim as a "cock tease" and he feels he is doing the race of men a favor by killing them. Actually we do sense he is really going off the deep end - at one point he follows a woman to her car and strangles her in the car.
While his murders do make headlines he is sharing them with a second serial killer known as the Skidrow Slasher.* These are male derelicts who are found cut up and mutilated in the back rows of the streets at night. Again no police investigation is shown. But we are invited to see the party responsible. It is a pornography book store owner played by Steckler's real life wife Caroline Brandt. Apparently (we are never allowed into her mental state to see what her problem is) she sees the derelicts as the parasitic men threatening the race of women, and sees it her duty to destroy them.
(*I hate to give a schlockmeister like Steckler any real credit for creative force, but I keep wondering if he first got the idea of the two killers from the notorious Zodiac murderer who operated in California in the 1970s, and was never caught, as well as the "Hillside Strangler", who was caught eventually.)
You can see what is inevitable in this crappy film.
Agostino goes into the book store one day, and his eyes and Brandt's meet. Now neither is really pleasant looking, but both are "presentable" and neat. Both have some "good points" that could overcome their negatives (Agostino never smiles, Brandt has a perennial stare in her eyes). Slowly they get to know each other and start judging each other as a classier type than they have known than others of each other's sex. They decide to go full scale into a deep relationship. And just as it is coming to fruition they realize just who each other is, and what each other does.
SPOILER:
Briefly their growing fondness (I really can't consider it love) turns into mutual contempt and hatred, ending with Agostino strangling Brandt to death while Brandt plunges her knife repeatedly into Agostino's belly stabbing him to death. She dies first, and he dies shortly after.
Aside from the shock value of the murders (which frankly gets monotonous) and the film of the streets, it is a wretched film. I take it that it found it's audience, as Steckler would later do a second film with Agostino (playing the same role - hey didn't he die in this first picture - only playing it in Las Vegas). One can't pass this story by without also noting that it could have been improved in many ways. For instance, Brandt's knife could have been used by Agostino on her while she strangled him in a curious, if fitting reversal, of murder methods. But even with that it would have been a worthless bit of change for such a film. Really the best thing to say about such a film is one need never have to see it. I recommend to the readers they avoid it like the plague.
Ray Steckler was nowhere near the Chaplin class of director and film creator. He is nearer Ed Wood, but Wood had that saving grace of having some concept or idea that was original but that he could not bring to the screen due to poor talent. Steckler was basically an opportunist who shot films that were violent and full of quasi-pornography. He never could do a nude sequence of interest. He just could show sleazy situations. It was enough to attract an audience, but its not cinematic art at it's best (Chaplin) or it's worst (Wood).
The plot of this film is fairly simple: Johnny Click (that is his name) is a photographer played by Peter Agostino. He has been married but the marriage is now over, and he is a bitter man due to that. He looks at most of the women he meets as tramps and prostitutes, and since he is in Hollywood he does see many of them on the street corners. With a better script and direction it could be the negative version of Julia Roberts-Richard Gere's "Pretty Women", the street nightmare of the whores that Roberts wants to get away from. But this is Stekler, and he concentrates on the sensational that will make the film a ticket seller to a certain audience that just likes sensation. I will give him one credit though - his shots of the streets of Hollywood are done well, and the more to his credit is the cheapness of his film equipment: Steckler made this film as a silent film with a shoulder held camera. Later (at prodding of distributors) Agostino does do some narrative.
Agostino contacts whores and offers to do photos with them as models, showing their "skills" for his camera. And we see him do in all these poor girls by strangling them. We never see any police investigation (it would have meant a more involved script with more acting). Agostino sees every victim as a "cock tease" and he feels he is doing the race of men a favor by killing them. Actually we do sense he is really going off the deep end - at one point he follows a woman to her car and strangles her in the car.
While his murders do make headlines he is sharing them with a second serial killer known as the Skidrow Slasher.* These are male derelicts who are found cut up and mutilated in the back rows of the streets at night. Again no police investigation is shown. But we are invited to see the party responsible. It is a pornography book store owner played by Steckler's real life wife Caroline Brandt. Apparently (we are never allowed into her mental state to see what her problem is) she sees the derelicts as the parasitic men threatening the race of women, and sees it her duty to destroy them.
(*I hate to give a schlockmeister like Steckler any real credit for creative force, but I keep wondering if he first got the idea of the two killers from the notorious Zodiac murderer who operated in California in the 1970s, and was never caught, as well as the "Hillside Strangler", who was caught eventually.)
You can see what is inevitable in this crappy film.
Agostino goes into the book store one day, and his eyes and Brandt's meet. Now neither is really pleasant looking, but both are "presentable" and neat. Both have some "good points" that could overcome their negatives (Agostino never smiles, Brandt has a perennial stare in her eyes). Slowly they get to know each other and start judging each other as a classier type than they have known than others of each other's sex. They decide to go full scale into a deep relationship. And just as it is coming to fruition they realize just who each other is, and what each other does.
SPOILER:
Briefly their growing fondness (I really can't consider it love) turns into mutual contempt and hatred, ending with Agostino strangling Brandt to death while Brandt plunges her knife repeatedly into Agostino's belly stabbing him to death. She dies first, and he dies shortly after.
Aside from the shock value of the murders (which frankly gets monotonous) and the film of the streets, it is a wretched film. I take it that it found it's audience, as Steckler would later do a second film with Agostino (playing the same role - hey didn't he die in this first picture - only playing it in Las Vegas). One can't pass this story by without also noting that it could have been improved in many ways. For instance, Brandt's knife could have been used by Agostino on her while she strangled him in a curious, if fitting reversal, of murder methods. But even with that it would have been a worthless bit of change for such a film. Really the best thing to say about such a film is one need never have to see it. I recommend to the readers they avoid it like the plague.
Ray Dennis Steckler Meets The Late 70's
daniel-mannouch6 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Ray Dennis Steckler is in the same pantheon as directors such as Ed Wood Jr, Al Adamson, Doris Wishman and Herschell Gordon Lewis, icons of the B-movie golden age that will never be replicated. Labeled as crooks and hacks and outsider artists and renaissance filmmakers, these men and women were real deal iconoclasts, unintentional or not, and style or a sense of realism were considered frivolities.
Steckler's Hollywood Strangler is a silent film that was made in 1978 for apparently a low four digit sum and yes it shows. Even at 70 minutes, this dragged and i was once again re-educated in the exploitation cinema con.
Having said all this, Steckler's late in the day effort is a film i can not put a spin on. It does not feel like a 60's b-movie maker struggling in the extreme 70's horror market, neither does it feel like softcore porn, or a genuine attempt at psychological drama. There are too many breasts, too much purposefully voyeuristic camerawork and too elevator pitch a story to label it as any of the above.
The camerawork is the strongest element of this film. No surprise as this was shot without sound, but the cinematography, mostly comprising of wide angle set-ups or verite style b-roll gives a sense of the detached that is too thematically fitting in with the story to be considered accidental. Steckler had a vision, however cheap, and he executed it to considerable success. Even so, to the point, that one could make the case that the 100% post-production soundtrack actually further immerses you into the mind of this killer. 70% of the entire film's sound after all, is his inner-monologue.
I will not lie, i wanted something a bit more crazy from Rat pfink a Ray Ray than a very late in the day roughie, but i will look past my initial disappointment and see Hollywood Strangler as yes the cheapest psycho-sexual thriller that was not a hardcore porno, that was also more successful in achieving a mood of alienating repulsion and dread than many of its contemporaries.
In conclusion, you have my personal blessing to interpret Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skidrow Slasher as a work of the avant-garde is that makes you feel any better. What i saw was a puzzling, troubling, unbelievably frugal exercise in minimalist horror that makes El Mariachi look like Titanic. My curiosity is way peaked and i look forward to advancing into the odyssey that is Ray Dennis Steckler's filmography. A true champion of the drive in.
Steckler's Hollywood Strangler is a silent film that was made in 1978 for apparently a low four digit sum and yes it shows. Even at 70 minutes, this dragged and i was once again re-educated in the exploitation cinema con.
Having said all this, Steckler's late in the day effort is a film i can not put a spin on. It does not feel like a 60's b-movie maker struggling in the extreme 70's horror market, neither does it feel like softcore porn, or a genuine attempt at psychological drama. There are too many breasts, too much purposefully voyeuristic camerawork and too elevator pitch a story to label it as any of the above.
The camerawork is the strongest element of this film. No surprise as this was shot without sound, but the cinematography, mostly comprising of wide angle set-ups or verite style b-roll gives a sense of the detached that is too thematically fitting in with the story to be considered accidental. Steckler had a vision, however cheap, and he executed it to considerable success. Even so, to the point, that one could make the case that the 100% post-production soundtrack actually further immerses you into the mind of this killer. 70% of the entire film's sound after all, is his inner-monologue.
I will not lie, i wanted something a bit more crazy from Rat pfink a Ray Ray than a very late in the day roughie, but i will look past my initial disappointment and see Hollywood Strangler as yes the cheapest psycho-sexual thriller that was not a hardcore porno, that was also more successful in achieving a mood of alienating repulsion and dread than many of its contemporaries.
In conclusion, you have my personal blessing to interpret Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skidrow Slasher as a work of the avant-garde is that makes you feel any better. What i saw was a puzzling, troubling, unbelievably frugal exercise in minimalist horror that makes El Mariachi look like Titanic. My curiosity is way peaked and i look forward to advancing into the odyssey that is Ray Dennis Steckler's filmography. A true champion of the drive in.
Steckler's great urban nightmare
EyeAskance20 January 2004
Unapologetically lowbrow sleaze, and pretty potent to boot, "Hollywood Strangler" is an undervalued keyhole-peek at raging lustmord and urban decay. Similar to the 50s classic DAUGHTER OF HORROR in its dialog-free presentation, the film is largely narrated through the inner-thoughts of a diabolical madman...his warped mind surging with rabid hatred of females which drives him to strangle. And strangle again...and again...
By and by, he becomes intrigued by a staunch female bookshop clerk who, unbeknownst to him, is a serial killer as well. With switchblade in-hand, she helps to rid the L.A. streets of the drunks and degenerates she so passionately detests. The eventual collision of these two psychotic personas results in a most unnerving tango.
Ingenious use of dingy backstreet locations is beneficial to the asphalt-and-pavement grittiness of this film, the camera leering voyeuristically upon smut-theater marquees and random profligate sluts tramping about in booby-buster tanktops and cheek-peek short-shorts. Ultra-minimalist cinema defined...a shining star on the index of one of filmdom's most peripheral figures.
7/10
By and by, he becomes intrigued by a staunch female bookshop clerk who, unbeknownst to him, is a serial killer as well. With switchblade in-hand, she helps to rid the L.A. streets of the drunks and degenerates she so passionately detests. The eventual collision of these two psychotic personas results in a most unnerving tango.
Ingenious use of dingy backstreet locations is beneficial to the asphalt-and-pavement grittiness of this film, the camera leering voyeuristically upon smut-theater marquees and random profligate sluts tramping about in booby-buster tanktops and cheek-peek short-shorts. Ultra-minimalist cinema defined...a shining star on the index of one of filmdom's most peripheral figures.
7/10
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Gafke15 July 2004
Hollywood, 1979. It doesn't get much sleazier than this.
Jonathan Click (perhaps a long lost brother of Mad Dog Click?) is a pigeon petting loner whose bitter memories of some girl named Marcia lead him to strangle hot young "models" in Hollywood. At the same time, frumpy used bookstore owner Carolyn Brandt is getting sick and tired of all the winos who stumble into her store to swig from their bottles, so she rams a switchblade into their throats. Jonathan becomes infatuated with Carolyn and spends much of the film stalking her around Hollywood. When he gets up the nerve to go into her store, they spend a silent eternity staring at each other over the racks of three ring binders and LPs for sale, but never speaking. When Carolyn isn't knifing bums or staring into space with a never-changing expression of boredom mixed with slight gassiness on her face, she's running up and down the beach in an unflattering jogging suit. There's no police work here, no world weary detectives trying to catch Jonathan or Carolyn before they can strike again, just two mediocre killers going about their daily routines. But, there's also a lot of gratuitous nudity provided by some halfway pretty girls, so it's not a total loss for those who enjoy a little T&A.
This is one of Steckler's most depressing films, and I'm not sure if it's the lack of dialog, the repetitive "action" or the subject matter that makes it so. Maybe Ray was just in a crappy mood that week. Fans of his early films - Rat Pfink, Incredibly Strange Creatures and Thrill Killers - may be disappointed with this one, but the commentary by Joe Bob Briggs on the newly released DVD version is very enjoyable, funny and informative and makes the film much more bearable.
Jonathan Click (perhaps a long lost brother of Mad Dog Click?) is a pigeon petting loner whose bitter memories of some girl named Marcia lead him to strangle hot young "models" in Hollywood. At the same time, frumpy used bookstore owner Carolyn Brandt is getting sick and tired of all the winos who stumble into her store to swig from their bottles, so she rams a switchblade into their throats. Jonathan becomes infatuated with Carolyn and spends much of the film stalking her around Hollywood. When he gets up the nerve to go into her store, they spend a silent eternity staring at each other over the racks of three ring binders and LPs for sale, but never speaking. When Carolyn isn't knifing bums or staring into space with a never-changing expression of boredom mixed with slight gassiness on her face, she's running up and down the beach in an unflattering jogging suit. There's no police work here, no world weary detectives trying to catch Jonathan or Carolyn before they can strike again, just two mediocre killers going about their daily routines. But, there's also a lot of gratuitous nudity provided by some halfway pretty girls, so it's not a total loss for those who enjoy a little T&A.
This is one of Steckler's most depressing films, and I'm not sure if it's the lack of dialog, the repetitive "action" or the subject matter that makes it so. Maybe Ray was just in a crappy mood that week. Fans of his early films - Rat Pfink, Incredibly Strange Creatures and Thrill Killers - may be disappointed with this one, but the commentary by Joe Bob Briggs on the newly released DVD version is very enjoyable, funny and informative and makes the film much more bearable.
Simply Awful
bensonmum228 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
- Such as it is, I'll try to give a brief outline of the movie. During a photo session, the photographer strangles his model. Meanwhile, a bookstore owner stalks and knives a wino. Later, the same photographer strangles another model. The bookstore owner stalks and knives another wino. This continues until the two meet. Without a word, they seem to fall in love. But what kind of relationship can two serial killers have? Apparently, not much of one.
- The Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher is the perfect example of inept film-making. If you're idea of a good time is watching people you don't know kill other people you don't know, this may be the movie for you. This basic premise is repeated over and over and over. Eventually, I just wanted to throw something at the screen. How about a little explanation as to who these people are and why they are doing what they do? Unfortunately, concepts like a plot don't get in the way of the killing.
- Steckler filmed this movie without any dialogue. He later added some voice overs at the insistence of his distributor. Dialogue may have helped, although I doubt it.
- If you really must see this movie, watch it with Joe Bob Briggs commentary. There are a few laugh out loud moments. Otherwise, I found it impossible to get through even the first 10 minutes.
A definite contender for the worst slasher ever
acidburn-1016 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I am a big fan of old slasher movies and have watched many of them through the years, a lot of them good and of course a lot of them bad. But this one is a definite contender for the worst slasher movie I've ever seen.
Despite an interesting title and the fact that it features 2 serial killers and it's rather bleak setting, this was just mind numbingly boring and tasteless. It was just endless scenes of repeating itself, the guy endlessly strangles women to bad taste and each death less suspenseful than the last, and then we the viewer are treated to a mindless monologue of the boring thoughts in his head as he tries to find his pure woman, who also happens to be the skid row slasher who kills tramps, which again not a spoiler as firstly it's revealed early on, and secondly these deaths aren't any better, as the theme around these seem to be pure sleaze, and again we are also treated to endless scenes of her jogging on the beach after each murder.
Okay I do understand in what's it's trying to go for, it is something different to the usual fare, but it's just poorly executed in this and the narration is just downright pure boring, even the final showdown between the two was an awful disappointment, which was kinda expected after viewing the latter half of this god awful mess.
So all in all, stay well clear it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth and only seek out if you have to.
Despite an interesting title and the fact that it features 2 serial killers and it's rather bleak setting, this was just mind numbingly boring and tasteless. It was just endless scenes of repeating itself, the guy endlessly strangles women to bad taste and each death less suspenseful than the last, and then we the viewer are treated to a mindless monologue of the boring thoughts in his head as he tries to find his pure woman, who also happens to be the skid row slasher who kills tramps, which again not a spoiler as firstly it's revealed early on, and secondly these deaths aren't any better, as the theme around these seem to be pure sleaze, and again we are also treated to endless scenes of her jogging on the beach after each murder.
Okay I do understand in what's it's trying to go for, it is something different to the usual fare, but it's just poorly executed in this and the narration is just downright pure boring, even the final showdown between the two was an awful disappointment, which was kinda expected after viewing the latter half of this god awful mess.
So all in all, stay well clear it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth and only seek out if you have to.
If YOU Were A Skid-Row Slasher, What Kind Of Wastebasket Would You Have In YOUR Office?
hottraxx8216 August 2012
Oh, Mr. Steckler! I love "Incredibly Strange Creatures," especially the stunning execution of the musical numbers (not to mention the little monkey screaming "Get your tickets-tickets-tickets he-yah!"). Liz Renay gingerly navigating a steep & rocky hillside in (& out) of heels while emitting half-hearted squeaks with a psycho-maniac in hot pursuit in "The Thrill Killers" thrills me. The inept children's chorale raggedly shouting the theme song of "The Lemon Grove Kids" has enduring appeal. All these moments and many more from your unique oeuvre are forever-burned into my brain. But i had to fast forward thru most of this sad affair. I did, however, enjoy the roller-disco "scene." (It reminded me of the cake walks we had in grade school.) And TWO STARS for the Peanuts wastebasket!
The Hollywood Mime meets the Skid Row Derelict
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki28 April 2003
Some fruitcake is loitering around the streets of L.A. taking pictures of (ugly) wannabe models, all the while we hear a voice-over narration as he muses about his ex girlfriend or ex wife- it's never made clear- and then strangles said wannabe models. This is occasionally interrupted by scenes of another ugly woman, who works in a used bookstore, stabbing bums to death on the streets with an ever handy switchblade. No explanation is ever given as to why this is happening, why the killings are being committed.
Sleazy little movie looks like it was filmed in one or two days on the streets of L.A. and in back alleys and in old apartment buildings - maybe the crew just decided it would be cheaper to film this at their houses instead of on an actual set? There is NO DIALOGUE!, just a narration added in after the fact and a lot of canned background music all jumbled together, and some of the narration is barely decipherable. That might make it worth watching in a "so bad it's good" kind of way, but if you're looking for anything more than that, steer clear.
Sleazy little movie looks like it was filmed in one or two days on the streets of L.A. and in back alleys and in old apartment buildings - maybe the crew just decided it would be cheaper to film this at their houses instead of on an actual set? There is NO DIALOGUE!, just a narration added in after the fact and a lot of canned background music all jumbled together, and some of the narration is barely decipherable. That might make it worth watching in a "so bad it's good" kind of way, but if you're looking for anything more than that, steer clear.
Fascinating in its way.
Hey_Sweden8 May 2012
At this point in his filmmaking career, Ray Dennis Steckler had become obsessed with making his movies for as little money as possible. What he does here is an amusing study in minimalist filmmaking. It doesn't matter if it wouldn't exactly have been up for any Oscars, it remains a curious, watchable oddity for its mercifully brief 71 minute running time. As one might guess, there's not a whole lot of story here. The movie concerns two characters who we know are destined to come together at some point. Pierre Agostino is The Hollywood Strangler, a photographer by trade who's come to regard his models and other assorted young women as "bad" and in need of punishment. Yeah, we've seen guys like him in movies like this before. Carolyn Brandt, Steckler's ex-wife and frequent collaborator, is the other character whom we follow around, a bookstore employee who, when she's not staring off into space or jogging on the beach, is offing drunken bums with her handy switchblade. It's only a matter of time before these two like minded individuals are going to make the move of introducing themselves to one another. In the meantime, it's important to note that Steckler wasn't too interested in using microphones, so he filmed this as a virtual silent movie, a bold move for any exploitation film made during this time period. (Stock) music, sound effects, dialogue and narration were all added later. And what a hoot that narration is, hilariously written and hilariously performed, adding some spice to a leisurely paced pile of cinematic trash. The major point of interest with this thing is viewing it as a series of snapshots of a particular place - Hollywood Boulevard and its series of adult businesses - during a specific era, in this case, the late 1970s. That's really what makes it fascinating, although what's good for a great deal of entertainment are Agostino's expressions and Brandt's *lack* of expressions. Adventuresome sleaze lovers are certain to find this an acceptable diversion; others beware. It comes complete with numerous breast shots, shots of legs kicking as female victims get killed, various sexy outfits, and a generous helping of that endearingly tacky bright red movie blood. Seven out of 10.
so bad, SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad
movieman_kev2 June 2005
A photographer strangles homely models after he photographs them he then meets a ugly girl who strangles bums. Really not much more of a plot and aside from some narration added in post production. This is a stupid stupid film and if I hadn't already watched "Schizophreniac: The Whore Mangler", I would have thought it the worst serial killer film I had ever seen. But I DID see the aforementioned film so this one while still horrid, doesn't seem bad in comparison. The ONLY way to watch this travesty would be with the Joe Bob Briggs commentary on or not at all.
My Grade: D
DVD Extras: Movie Intro & Commentary by Joe Bob Briggs; Second commentary by Ray Steckler; Interviews with Steckler & Caroline Brandt; Production stills & poster art; and trailers for "Blood Shack", "Adventure of Rat Pfink and boo boo", "Slaughter Hotel", and "Nightmare come at Night"
Eye Candy: Joanne Hiatt, Lori Morrir, Snowy Sinclair, Bonnie Smith, and Jean Robert all get topless
My Grade: D
DVD Extras: Movie Intro & Commentary by Joe Bob Briggs; Second commentary by Ray Steckler; Interviews with Steckler & Caroline Brandt; Production stills & poster art; and trailers for "Blood Shack", "Adventure of Rat Pfink and boo boo", "Slaughter Hotel", and "Nightmare come at Night"
Eye Candy: Joanne Hiatt, Lori Morrir, Snowy Sinclair, Bonnie Smith, and Jean Robert all get topless
Very underrated film
vigilante407-123 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
After waiting nearly twenty years to see The Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher, I was not disappointed. This is one of Ray Dennis Steckler's best films, rivaling his classic cheapies from the sixties.
A lot of people probably look at this one as a cheap slasher flick (emphasizing the cheap, since it was filmed without sound). I suppose the slasher film fans found it disappointed because the slasher aspect was pretty limited (and the blood was rather obviously fake), but I found it to be rather entrancing for some reason, maybe because of that. The cinematography was great, the choice of locations was excellent (seeing all those old porn shops and what not that you really don't have anymore to provide local color to an area was enjoyable). There's a surreal reality to it all, from the nearly-glowing red blood on the slasher's victims, to seeing all of the movie memorabilia in the used book store that Carolyn Brandt's character works in (that poster for Last of the Wild Horses is something I'd slash someone for too).
This has to be one of the quirkiest "love" stories you will ever watch. For some reason, about the only movie I can think of compare it to is Daughter of Horror (without all the Dali-esquire imagery, of course).
This film is definitely worth a viewing, whether you're a Ray Dennis Steckler fan or not.
A lot of people probably look at this one as a cheap slasher flick (emphasizing the cheap, since it was filmed without sound). I suppose the slasher film fans found it disappointed because the slasher aspect was pretty limited (and the blood was rather obviously fake), but I found it to be rather entrancing for some reason, maybe because of that. The cinematography was great, the choice of locations was excellent (seeing all those old porn shops and what not that you really don't have anymore to provide local color to an area was enjoyable). There's a surreal reality to it all, from the nearly-glowing red blood on the slasher's victims, to seeing all of the movie memorabilia in the used book store that Carolyn Brandt's character works in (that poster for Last of the Wild Horses is something I'd slash someone for too).
This has to be one of the quirkiest "love" stories you will ever watch. For some reason, about the only movie I can think of compare it to is Daughter of Horror (without all the Dali-esquire imagery, of course).
This film is definitely worth a viewing, whether you're a Ray Dennis Steckler fan or not.
A horrible film that also manages to be rather sick and disgusting.
planktonrules26 November 2009
Why, oh why did I see this horrible film? Well, it was purely because I am trying to see the films of the great auteur, Ray Dennis Steckler--one of the most craptastic directors/producers/actors in motion picture history. I fact, I have, on a lark, decided to see as many of the films of a group of craptastic film makers--including Al Adamson, Arch Hall (Junior and Senior), Larry Buchanan, Ed Wood, William Grefe and a few others. These men all shared many wonderful traits--the ability to make films for almost nothing and a complete ineptness that makes many of their films unintentional laugh riots. However, not all of their films are laughable messes--some are just nasty, horrible films--like THE Hollywood STRANGLER.
What makes this film so unpleasant and non-funny is that the film, though inept, is also a bit like being inside the mind of a sex pervert murderer--and seeing his depravity up close and in person. Sometimes seeing crime is interesting--this is more like being and experiencing the murders first-hand--a nasty proposition indeed. Some may like this but mostly it just felt sleazy and sick. And, there were lots of assorted murders (stabbings, suffocations, etc.) and tons of gratuitous nudity--with women who looked rather skanky.
Overall, the entire film was handled so poorly, even the voyeurs out there will be disappointed. That's because when Steckler made the film, it was silent! Sound was added later as well as a voice-over dialog as well as occasional "Popeye Speak". In other words, voices were added in some scenes and the voices were too soft and rather garbled--sort of like the way Popeye talked to himself in cartoons! It all is very bizarre and very cheap. The only saving grace to all this is that the film is rather short.
A terrible film in every way. And, for that matter, I worry about anyone who would actually get enjoyment out of this thing. It's just nasty and stupid--a rare combination.
What makes this film so unpleasant and non-funny is that the film, though inept, is also a bit like being inside the mind of a sex pervert murderer--and seeing his depravity up close and in person. Sometimes seeing crime is interesting--this is more like being and experiencing the murders first-hand--a nasty proposition indeed. Some may like this but mostly it just felt sleazy and sick. And, there were lots of assorted murders (stabbings, suffocations, etc.) and tons of gratuitous nudity--with women who looked rather skanky.
Overall, the entire film was handled so poorly, even the voyeurs out there will be disappointed. That's because when Steckler made the film, it was silent! Sound was added later as well as a voice-over dialog as well as occasional "Popeye Speak". In other words, voices were added in some scenes and the voices were too soft and rather garbled--sort of like the way Popeye talked to himself in cartoons! It all is very bizarre and very cheap. The only saving grace to all this is that the film is rather short.
A terrible film in every way. And, for that matter, I worry about anyone who would actually get enjoyment out of this thing. It's just nasty and stupid--a rare combination.
Oscar
tedg10 July 2005
I slum a lot, impulsively watching cheap movies. Sometimes, I'm pleased to find one that really is interesting or challenging or intelligent almost in spite of itself. "Attic Expeditions" is one such.
This isn't, though I appreciate the idea. Lets suppose all men are stranglers who hate women while being attracted to them. And all women are bitches who see men as insects that need to be killed.
In such a world, men and women do couple. What then?
A small matter of interest is that the woman in this case is both the star and sponsor. One wonders: if you had one movie you could make, what would it be. This is her answer.
The exemplar for this type of movie is the wonderful "Oscar and Lucinda," though it deals with obsessions and compulsions other than death. As with Cate Blanchett, the woman here is redheaded and something is made of that: hair unfurled in beach breeze.
But the execution is dead. They killed it.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
This isn't, though I appreciate the idea. Lets suppose all men are stranglers who hate women while being attracted to them. And all women are bitches who see men as insects that need to be killed.
In such a world, men and women do couple. What then?
A small matter of interest is that the woman in this case is both the star and sponsor. One wonders: if you had one movie you could make, what would it be. This is her answer.
The exemplar for this type of movie is the wonderful "Oscar and Lucinda," though it deals with obsessions and compulsions other than death. As with Cate Blanchett, the woman here is redheaded and something is made of that: hair unfurled in beach breeze.
But the execution is dead. They killed it.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
Crap at its worst
R0SK029 January 2003
This is probably by far the worst movie I have ever seen. I'm not even going to pretend that I enjoyed watching this piece of trash. This is quite possibly the worst movie ever made, and I would suggest to you to rent this movie to witness for yourself. It will be a difficult one to find, but if you ever get your hands on this make sure you rent it. 1 out of 10
Low rent grindhouse for sure
Red-Barracuda17 September 2021
This is an example of proper 42nd Street grindhouse z-grade schlock. It's a pretty sleazy tale about a couple of serial killers - a male strangler who targets young women and a female slasher who kills old male jakies. The story is nothing but a succession of murder scenes and that is really about it. It is proper low rent stuff with no synchronised sound meaning there is a lot of (tedious) voice-over narration from the Strangler. Its sheer scuzziness does generate a fascination of sorts but its complete lack of production values and talent ensure that it has some serious inbuilt limitations.
Serial killer romance
Gravendal3 December 2022
Well, what can I say about this one? It follows a serial killer and his killing while he falls in love with a woman that is also a serial killer.
But it is good? 5/10, it's ok to watch but nothing special. There is so many better serial killer movies from the 70s. But it's ok enough to watch one time when you are bored. I like that it follows the killers mind and perspective, gives the movie a little bit more depth why he kills then just random killing. Did I expect more from this? No, not really. I did think it would be a love story but hah, that I totally got it wrong!
The acting is ok, scenes are ok, movie overall is ok.
But it is good? 5/10, it's ok to watch but nothing special. There is so many better serial killer movies from the 70s. But it's ok enough to watch one time when you are bored. I like that it follows the killers mind and perspective, gives the movie a little bit more depth why he kills then just random killing. Did I expect more from this? No, not really. I did think it would be a love story but hah, that I totally got it wrong!
The acting is ok, scenes are ok, movie overall is ok.
Deja Vu movie...
alucardvenom13 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Warning... This movie might contain spoilers, but since Im sure you're not going to watch another forgotten cult flick by infamous Ray Dennis Steckler, I won't hold up with spoilers (like there is anything to spoil!).
This whole movie felt like one big deja vu. No, seriously. Whole movie is made from three scenes: 1.) The Hollywood Strangler strangles model (or how she calls them, sluts, garbage and "like the rest of them") and then goes of cooling playing with his pigeons(!?) or drinking bear all the time calling his ex Marsha (I think that was her name). Btw, his name is Johnathan Click and he is photographer.
2.) The Skid row slasher played by Steckler ex-wife Carolyn Brandt (imagine that) who owns a book store by day and is well wino slasher by night. All she does in this movie is: going to the store to open it, staring at drunk, going for the drunk, slashing the throat or stabbing the drunk and then cooling of the beach. Yeah, I forgot to tell that she HAS to close the store every single scene.
3.) Well I can't actually remember what was the 3rd scene...
Anyway, whole movie is deja vu. You might think that you are watching the same scenes repeat over and over since all the killing in this movie are done in exact same way and all events are just repeated with different actors or actress.
Another important fact of this movie is that it's a SILENT movie made in '70. I love those '70, those were the time (and '80) where you could put anything on the screen. Steckler hated sound and he also hated spending money on recording sound so he made a silent movie. When she showed up this movie to producers they thought he gave them some random footage of his vacation he shot while driving from the car. But no, Steckler was serious as always so producers decided to PAY HIM just to put some dialogs and sound into the movie. What Steckler has done is that he recorded lines and mixed them so it looks like we are in the mind of a serial killer (Hollywood Strangler) and narration in the movie are actually his thoughts. Clever idea even by Steckler's standards. Is there no sarcasm in my sentences? Not at all? there's a funny fact how the hell this movie was made. Steckler was on his movie-making class when he start discussion with students where he told them that he could make a scene in the dark with using only his camera and two lights. Result: He made a slasher scene where killer is slashing homeless drunk. Of course he got 75% of his answer incorrect, but who cares! THE Hollywood STRANGLER MEETS THE SKID ROW SLASHER was born from that scene! (since Steckler didn't want to waste all that used movie track he had) Why am I not telling anything about plot? Well... there is actually no plot except for the two scenes I told you about. There is lot of nudity, but no plot. It's a Steckler movie and you should know that he was PORN director in '70. He even used footage from his other movie in this one (from "Plato's Retreat West" the Rollerblade nude dance scene. Don't rush it, there are no hot bodies to look for here. Well, you might find it beautiful if you like to see naked body of a sixty years old virgins. I'm serious about this one. There is maybe one thirty years old girl in this scene which is NOT hot at all.) Bottom line: This movie suck like rest of the Ray Dennis Steckler movies, but if you are fun of his work you might like this (but you may not even if you are fun because this movie really sucks!). If you are a extreme lover of horrible movies check this one out, if not RUN LIKE HELL FROM THIS MOVIE!
Ps. Don't be fooled by director's name of Wolfgang Schmidt, it's one of many names Steckler has been using during his unsuccessful career.
This whole movie felt like one big deja vu. No, seriously. Whole movie is made from three scenes: 1.) The Hollywood Strangler strangles model (or how she calls them, sluts, garbage and "like the rest of them") and then goes of cooling playing with his pigeons(!?) or drinking bear all the time calling his ex Marsha (I think that was her name). Btw, his name is Johnathan Click and he is photographer.
2.) The Skid row slasher played by Steckler ex-wife Carolyn Brandt (imagine that) who owns a book store by day and is well wino slasher by night. All she does in this movie is: going to the store to open it, staring at drunk, going for the drunk, slashing the throat or stabbing the drunk and then cooling of the beach. Yeah, I forgot to tell that she HAS to close the store every single scene.
3.) Well I can't actually remember what was the 3rd scene...
Anyway, whole movie is deja vu. You might think that you are watching the same scenes repeat over and over since all the killing in this movie are done in exact same way and all events are just repeated with different actors or actress.
Another important fact of this movie is that it's a SILENT movie made in '70. I love those '70, those were the time (and '80) where you could put anything on the screen. Steckler hated sound and he also hated spending money on recording sound so he made a silent movie. When she showed up this movie to producers they thought he gave them some random footage of his vacation he shot while driving from the car. But no, Steckler was serious as always so producers decided to PAY HIM just to put some dialogs and sound into the movie. What Steckler has done is that he recorded lines and mixed them so it looks like we are in the mind of a serial killer (Hollywood Strangler) and narration in the movie are actually his thoughts. Clever idea even by Steckler's standards. Is there no sarcasm in my sentences? Not at all? there's a funny fact how the hell this movie was made. Steckler was on his movie-making class when he start discussion with students where he told them that he could make a scene in the dark with using only his camera and two lights. Result: He made a slasher scene where killer is slashing homeless drunk. Of course he got 75% of his answer incorrect, but who cares! THE Hollywood STRANGLER MEETS THE SKID ROW SLASHER was born from that scene! (since Steckler didn't want to waste all that used movie track he had) Why am I not telling anything about plot? Well... there is actually no plot except for the two scenes I told you about. There is lot of nudity, but no plot. It's a Steckler movie and you should know that he was PORN director in '70. He even used footage from his other movie in this one (from "Plato's Retreat West" the Rollerblade nude dance scene. Don't rush it, there are no hot bodies to look for here. Well, you might find it beautiful if you like to see naked body of a sixty years old virgins. I'm serious about this one. There is maybe one thirty years old girl in this scene which is NOT hot at all.) Bottom line: This movie suck like rest of the Ray Dennis Steckler movies, but if you are fun of his work you might like this (but you may not even if you are fun because this movie really sucks!). If you are a extreme lover of horrible movies check this one out, if not RUN LIKE HELL FROM THIS MOVIE!
Ps. Don't be fooled by director's name of Wolfgang Schmidt, it's one of many names Steckler has been using during his unsuccessful career.
uncommonly good slasher flick, without all the genre foreplay
Jonny_Numb20 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Wow. Woah. There are occasions when the viewing of a movie is so perfectly timed that it just grabs you and refuses to let go. For me, it was midnight, and the movie was "Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher."
<SPOILERS>
Since seeing the well-deserved lampooning of "The Incredibly Strange Creatures..." on MST3K, I had very low expectations about this effort from maverick poverty-row director Ray Dennis Steckler, but was completely riveted by what took place over its 72-minute run time. Amazing, considering the movie is a series of events repeated over and over again. We follow a disturbed photographer (Pierre Agostino) who strangles young, voluptuous girls, and a bookstore clerk (Carolyn Brandt, incredibly attractive and menacing) who slashes the throats of grungy alcoholic bums. The movie skips the dull exposition that plagues more higher-class slashers by getting right down to business, and it never once lets up. Steckler's documentarian eye for authentic locations and actors, accompanied by a creepy score (stock music, perhaps?) sets a fitting mood. I mentioned the verbatim repetition of events (watch him photograph; watch him strangle; watch him drink a beer/watch her close up shop; watch her walk by the 25 cent XXX arcade; watch her stab with the exact same motion every time), but nothing is more chillingly repetitious than the manic voice over (for Agostino's character, but possibly someone else's voice) that propels the movie--that's right, the only real dialogue is this nut's forlorn search for a "pure" girl. And since he feels Brandt's slasher is the refined, cultured girl he seeks, the film leads to a powerful ending that's one of the greatest love scenes ever committed to celluloid.
Bravo, Mr. Steckler!
7/10
<SPOILERS>
Since seeing the well-deserved lampooning of "The Incredibly Strange Creatures..." on MST3K, I had very low expectations about this effort from maverick poverty-row director Ray Dennis Steckler, but was completely riveted by what took place over its 72-minute run time. Amazing, considering the movie is a series of events repeated over and over again. We follow a disturbed photographer (Pierre Agostino) who strangles young, voluptuous girls, and a bookstore clerk (Carolyn Brandt, incredibly attractive and menacing) who slashes the throats of grungy alcoholic bums. The movie skips the dull exposition that plagues more higher-class slashers by getting right down to business, and it never once lets up. Steckler's documentarian eye for authentic locations and actors, accompanied by a creepy score (stock music, perhaps?) sets a fitting mood. I mentioned the verbatim repetition of events (watch him photograph; watch him strangle; watch him drink a beer/watch her close up shop; watch her walk by the 25 cent XXX arcade; watch her stab with the exact same motion every time), but nothing is more chillingly repetitious than the manic voice over (for Agostino's character, but possibly someone else's voice) that propels the movie--that's right, the only real dialogue is this nut's forlorn search for a "pure" girl. And since he feels Brandt's slasher is the refined, cultured girl he seeks, the film leads to a powerful ending that's one of the greatest love scenes ever committed to celluloid.
Bravo, Mr. Steckler!
7/10
A good film but poor acting!!!!
ranger-3521 March 2000
This' A good film but it has poor acting.There's two different
plots in this story that eventually falls into one story. A photographer (pierre agostino) takes pictures of models and when they start coming on to him,he strangles them.Then there's A woman (carolyn brandt) who runs A bookstore,she goes around killing homeless drunks with A knife.Well the strangler starts stalking the woman which ends up in an bizarre ending.This film was directed by ray dennis steckler (he used the pseudo name wolfgang schmidt),the director with countless cult movies of the 60's and 70's.This' got to be one of the best ultra low budget movies of 1979 because of the cinematography.In 1985,there was A follow up to this movie called las vegas serial killer,again with pierre agostino as the crazed strangler.
plots in this story that eventually falls into one story. A photographer (pierre agostino) takes pictures of models and when they start coming on to him,he strangles them.Then there's A woman (carolyn brandt) who runs A bookstore,she goes around killing homeless drunks with A knife.Well the strangler starts stalking the woman which ends up in an bizarre ending.This film was directed by ray dennis steckler (he used the pseudo name wolfgang schmidt),the director with countless cult movies of the 60's and 70's.This' got to be one of the best ultra low budget movies of 1979 because of the cinematography.In 1985,there was A follow up to this movie called las vegas serial killer,again with pierre agostino as the crazed strangler.
The title is the best part of the film!
abduktionsphanomen5 September 2022
The Hollywood Strangler Meets The Skid Row Slasher - 1979
(This Film Rates a D )
A male serial killer hunts slutty models who are expecting a photo shoot. The killer is living in his head, having conversations with himself and imagines conversations with the models. In this way he can justify his actions and is able to kill with ease. It has a documentary tone. But wait! There is also a female slasher killing with a switchblade knife. Wandering drunks get sliced and diced in the throat in a not so exciting bloody manner. At some point the stories collide with a very predictable yet unrealistic climax and ending. Its low budget, dark, crude, dire and repetitive. The set and setting are bare bones. The strangling's could have been more intense if the acting was better, but they just carry on a bit too far and become mundane. The knifing victims are quick and bloody but not quite enough to satisfy. None of the killings are realistic. The soundtrack is poor and lackluster. The filler city street scenes are truly awesome in a nostalgic kind of way with some T&A to make this not a total failure. Though this film isn't a total waste it never fully lives up to its potential mainly due to budget constraints.
If You Want Sleaze Then Here It Is
Michael_Elliott22 January 2011
Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher, The (1979)
** (out of 4)
From the man who brought you THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES WHO STOPPED LIVING AND BECAME MIXED-UP ZOMBIES comes another film with a rather interesting title. What we basically have is a nutty guy (Pierre Agostino) who hires cheap women to take photos of them but what he really wants is to strangle them, which he does plenty of. We also have the "Skid Row Slasher" who is a mystery person stalking the streets and stabbing homeless men in the neck. For those interested, the Hollywood Strangler has a lot more victims here and I'd say he has about a 3-to-1 advantage, which I'm going to guess is due to the budget reasons. I guess it was a lot cheaper to hire some woman to get naked than it was setting up a special effect where an actor had to spit out blood after being stabbed. So, is this a good movie? Not at all but when you compare it to other Steckler movies I have no problem saying this comes off as a masterpiece. The budget was so low that Steckler actually shot the film silent and later went back and added narration. Some of the dialogue is downright hilarious due to the various things the killer says. The highlight has to be a scene where he suffocates a woman with a pillow while asking if she's seen the Doris Day flick PILLOW TALK. Those who enjoy the sleazy cinema will be pleased to see a wide range of trashy posters hanging up in the various sets. These posters include TEENAGE MASSAGE PARLOR and several other films and we even get a lot of great shots from the sleazier areas of Los Angeles where there's apparently a porn theater showing DEEP THROAT around every corner or a place selling dirty magazines. Seeing these now gone places is a tad bit interesting and especially if you're interested in those type of grindhouse flicks. The film has very little story as all we get is one scene after another of women taking their clothes off and being strangled. Every once in a while we see a homeless man get slashed and that's pretty much it, although the director does go off the deep end towards the end and adds a love story. The identity of the Skid Row Slasher is meant to be a mystery but anyone should figure it out. The amount of sleaze going on in this film is pretty high as there's countless nudity and blood and it's almost enough to make the film worth sitting through. If you're offended by this type of material then it's best you stay away but those looking for cheap entertainment should get a few kicks out of this thing but even at under 70-minutes the thing goes on way too long.
** (out of 4)
From the man who brought you THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES WHO STOPPED LIVING AND BECAME MIXED-UP ZOMBIES comes another film with a rather interesting title. What we basically have is a nutty guy (Pierre Agostino) who hires cheap women to take photos of them but what he really wants is to strangle them, which he does plenty of. We also have the "Skid Row Slasher" who is a mystery person stalking the streets and stabbing homeless men in the neck. For those interested, the Hollywood Strangler has a lot more victims here and I'd say he has about a 3-to-1 advantage, which I'm going to guess is due to the budget reasons. I guess it was a lot cheaper to hire some woman to get naked than it was setting up a special effect where an actor had to spit out blood after being stabbed. So, is this a good movie? Not at all but when you compare it to other Steckler movies I have no problem saying this comes off as a masterpiece. The budget was so low that Steckler actually shot the film silent and later went back and added narration. Some of the dialogue is downright hilarious due to the various things the killer says. The highlight has to be a scene where he suffocates a woman with a pillow while asking if she's seen the Doris Day flick PILLOW TALK. Those who enjoy the sleazy cinema will be pleased to see a wide range of trashy posters hanging up in the various sets. These posters include TEENAGE MASSAGE PARLOR and several other films and we even get a lot of great shots from the sleazier areas of Los Angeles where there's apparently a porn theater showing DEEP THROAT around every corner or a place selling dirty magazines. Seeing these now gone places is a tad bit interesting and especially if you're interested in those type of grindhouse flicks. The film has very little story as all we get is one scene after another of women taking their clothes off and being strangled. Every once in a while we see a homeless man get slashed and that's pretty much it, although the director does go off the deep end towards the end and adds a love story. The identity of the Skid Row Slasher is meant to be a mystery but anyone should figure it out. The amount of sleaze going on in this film is pretty high as there's countless nudity and blood and it's almost enough to make the film worth sitting through. If you're offended by this type of material then it's best you stay away but those looking for cheap entertainment should get a few kicks out of this thing but even at under 70-minutes the thing goes on way too long.
The Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher
Scarecrow-8810 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A strangler of women he considers filth and trash not worth living using the disguise of a photographer to seduce young women into accepting him into their homes or apartments. A book store owner stalks drunken bums, waiting until they hide away in back alleys and abandoned dwellings, sticking a switchblade knife into their throats.
Ray Dennis Steckler's The Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher has two sadistic killers coming in contact with each other, no words spoken. Forced to add dialogue against his wishes by distributors beleaguered with his desire to release a silent movie(!), Steckler adds a narrative where we hear the thoughts of Pierre Agostino's strangler, yearning for a woman who is not the kind of trash he sees on a daily basis walking the Hollywood streets. Steckler's ex-wife, Carolyn Brandt, is the anonymous book store owner, whose disgust for hobos that frequent her shop, leads to the back alley knife stabbings(..each victim spitting globs of bright film blood). The series of murders by both become repetitious and rather monotonous, but I felt the film is more about the way of life in Hollywood, and we get a feeling of loneliness and despair, it's evident that times have changed "since Clark Gable was alive"(..to quote Steckler from his commentary).
The film has a lot of footage showing Carolyn walking streets across Santa Monica Blvd(..and Las Vegas locations were used as well)and Agostino drinking beer in his house while also looking at newspapers featuring nude girls. There are also several shots of Brandt jogging on the beach, which I think were meant to show the opening of a new day for murder and death. The stranglings, for the most part, are pretty heinous, particularly Jean Roberts(..who was a major babe)who he drowns in a jacuzzi(..owned by Steckler, a pool nearby also his). One scene has Agostino strangling a girl with her scarf before suffocating her friend with a pillow. The knife murders are mostly suggestive. Shiny knife goes out of frame. We see the horrified look on the bum's face. Shiny knife has blood and we soon see the bum victims grabbing at their neck wounds, falling into a heap.
I think Steckler's work will be admired by a small niche audience, but I have a hard time believing something like The Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher will engage a larger following. It's pace, even at an hour and change, can test those that have a lack of patience. This isn't as nutty as Steckler's other work and therefore might not grab the crowd who treasure his 60's stuff. Plenty of nude girls showing naked flesh before being disposed of in a not-so-flattering fashion. Agostino's strangler finds solace petting his pet pigeons. While Steckler provides Agostino's character with narration, and the female characters he meets with dialogue(..when we can not see their lips), Carolyn's thoughts are never exposed to us.
Ray Dennis Steckler's The Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher has two sadistic killers coming in contact with each other, no words spoken. Forced to add dialogue against his wishes by distributors beleaguered with his desire to release a silent movie(!), Steckler adds a narrative where we hear the thoughts of Pierre Agostino's strangler, yearning for a woman who is not the kind of trash he sees on a daily basis walking the Hollywood streets. Steckler's ex-wife, Carolyn Brandt, is the anonymous book store owner, whose disgust for hobos that frequent her shop, leads to the back alley knife stabbings(..each victim spitting globs of bright film blood). The series of murders by both become repetitious and rather monotonous, but I felt the film is more about the way of life in Hollywood, and we get a feeling of loneliness and despair, it's evident that times have changed "since Clark Gable was alive"(..to quote Steckler from his commentary).
The film has a lot of footage showing Carolyn walking streets across Santa Monica Blvd(..and Las Vegas locations were used as well)and Agostino drinking beer in his house while also looking at newspapers featuring nude girls. There are also several shots of Brandt jogging on the beach, which I think were meant to show the opening of a new day for murder and death. The stranglings, for the most part, are pretty heinous, particularly Jean Roberts(..who was a major babe)who he drowns in a jacuzzi(..owned by Steckler, a pool nearby also his). One scene has Agostino strangling a girl with her scarf before suffocating her friend with a pillow. The knife murders are mostly suggestive. Shiny knife goes out of frame. We see the horrified look on the bum's face. Shiny knife has blood and we soon see the bum victims grabbing at their neck wounds, falling into a heap.
I think Steckler's work will be admired by a small niche audience, but I have a hard time believing something like The Hollywood Strangler Meets the Skid Row Slasher will engage a larger following. It's pace, even at an hour and change, can test those that have a lack of patience. This isn't as nutty as Steckler's other work and therefore might not grab the crowd who treasure his 60's stuff. Plenty of nude girls showing naked flesh before being disposed of in a not-so-flattering fashion. Agostino's strangler finds solace petting his pet pigeons. While Steckler provides Agostino's character with narration, and the female characters he meets with dialogue(..when we can not see their lips), Carolyn's thoughts are never exposed to us.
A wonderfully warped and wretched piece of pure rancid 70's drive-in psycho horror schlock
Woodyanders6 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
An odd, absorbing and even touching low-budget stalk'n'slash meditation on viciously enforced puritanical mores, obsession, psycho killers, sex, nudity, bold-faced cinematic ineptitude, paltry production values and, most importantly, the profound need to spend your life loving that oh so wonderful, but annoyingly elusive someone special.
Irritable, homicidal, rigidly moralistic photographer Pierre Agostino angrily throttles every last gorgeous babe who fails to meet his strict ideal of the "perfect" woman. That's until he meets the wacko sicko "pure" gal of his dreams: Equally sanguinary and choleric bookstore owner Carolyn Brandt, who has a charming tendency to slice open the throats of any given filthy, uncouth bum who hits on her. The fact that Pierre has a passion for pigeons and Brandt has this thing for jogging only makes things better. Gee, ain't psychopathic misanthrope amour just grand?
Well, this exceptionally stinky, but strangely engaging and enthralling cheapjack trashy ragged-around-the-edges bargain basement poverty-row nickel'n'dime slice'n'dice sleazy junk sure hits the scuzzy spot something lurid. Under legendary Grade Z movie maestro Ray Dennis Steckler's typically slipshod (mis)direction, this choice cheesy chunk of celluloid crud hits all the essential schlock picture bases: we've got a forcefully delineated depiction of the dirty, grotty, thoroughly rundown and destitute Los Angeles milieu, the numerous murder set pieces pack a certain crudely ferocious wallop (the scene where Pierre strangles a hot chick in a jacuzzi with her own bikini top is a real doozy), a hideously meandering pace, clunky, tattered, unsteady cinematography which will have your stomach doing flip-flops, a great woozy, dolorous, wretchedly tuneless droning jazz score, hilariously horrible dialogue (Pierre to victim: "Die garbage!"), a catchy, affecting, truly wondrous ending credits theme song called "You're My Love" that's belted out with lip-smacking gusto by Alberto Sarno, lots of sexy, slender, firm-breasted young honeys who blithely display their delectable bare bodies with splendidly saucy'n'sizzling abandon, a warped, penniless, discontent, brooding gloom-doom slimy mood which grows on the viewer like a bad rash, and -- WARNING: Major *SPOILER* ahead! -- the final climactic meeting between the two titular loonies (they both kill each other) is both quite moving and simply glorious. This winner has almost everything going for it, with the notable exception of one tiny irrelevant thing: Quality. But hey, who needs quality when you can have an unceasingly ratty and repulsive teeming surplus of bottom-of-the-dumpster dwelling dimestore skankbag griminess instead?
Irritable, homicidal, rigidly moralistic photographer Pierre Agostino angrily throttles every last gorgeous babe who fails to meet his strict ideal of the "perfect" woman. That's until he meets the wacko sicko "pure" gal of his dreams: Equally sanguinary and choleric bookstore owner Carolyn Brandt, who has a charming tendency to slice open the throats of any given filthy, uncouth bum who hits on her. The fact that Pierre has a passion for pigeons and Brandt has this thing for jogging only makes things better. Gee, ain't psychopathic misanthrope amour just grand?
Well, this exceptionally stinky, but strangely engaging and enthralling cheapjack trashy ragged-around-the-edges bargain basement poverty-row nickel'n'dime slice'n'dice sleazy junk sure hits the scuzzy spot something lurid. Under legendary Grade Z movie maestro Ray Dennis Steckler's typically slipshod (mis)direction, this choice cheesy chunk of celluloid crud hits all the essential schlock picture bases: we've got a forcefully delineated depiction of the dirty, grotty, thoroughly rundown and destitute Los Angeles milieu, the numerous murder set pieces pack a certain crudely ferocious wallop (the scene where Pierre strangles a hot chick in a jacuzzi with her own bikini top is a real doozy), a hideously meandering pace, clunky, tattered, unsteady cinematography which will have your stomach doing flip-flops, a great woozy, dolorous, wretchedly tuneless droning jazz score, hilariously horrible dialogue (Pierre to victim: "Die garbage!"), a catchy, affecting, truly wondrous ending credits theme song called "You're My Love" that's belted out with lip-smacking gusto by Alberto Sarno, lots of sexy, slender, firm-breasted young honeys who blithely display their delectable bare bodies with splendidly saucy'n'sizzling abandon, a warped, penniless, discontent, brooding gloom-doom slimy mood which grows on the viewer like a bad rash, and -- WARNING: Major *SPOILER* ahead! -- the final climactic meeting between the two titular loonies (they both kill each other) is both quite moving and simply glorious. This winner has almost everything going for it, with the notable exception of one tiny irrelevant thing: Quality. But hey, who needs quality when you can have an unceasingly ratty and repulsive teeming surplus of bottom-of-the-dumpster dwelling dimestore skankbag griminess instead?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
