Sixteen

Meagerly funded and pretty trashy tale involving a dirt-poor backwoods couple coming unanticipatedly into a substantial amount of cash. They subsequently take their three kids to the state fair, where the two elder children(a boy and girl in their teens with an implied incestuous relationship)are corrupted by some shifty carnival folks. The girl is coerced into sex with a daredevil motorcycle rider(in front of an audience), and the boy becomes prey to a busty gold-digging stage dancer.

A sub-par and highly forgettable film which might be just quirky enough to interest a few fans of regional 70s exploitation cinema. Brief nudity and soft sex scenes may be missing from some prints.

Mercedes McCambridge, appearing rather uneasy here, gets a nomination for the "any old thing for a paycheck" Carradine Award. I imagine she was hard-up for fifty bucks when she signed on for this one. 4/10.

This was part of a strange cycle of early 70's movies focusing on rural Southern hillbillies--"hicks-ploitation" flicks you might call them. Some of the bigger-budgeted ones, like "Walking Tall", were serious and more or less realistic, while others, like some of the films of Roger Corman or Russ Meyers were more exploitative and melodramatic , while others still, like "Country Cuzzins" were flat-out Harry Novakesque softcore porn "comedies". It's hard to say where this oddity fits in. It has kind of a Southern Gothic feel to it like a William Faulkner or Flannery O'Connor morality tale about a family of poor hillbillies who come into money and are approached by every local con artist from used car salesmen to drunken preachers, but eventually end up at a fair (Vanity Fair, perhaps?) where they are preyed on by carnival folk in a long surreal, largely dialgue-free sequence that were so popular in the era (i.e. "Runaway, Runaway" or "The Pick-Up").

There are certainly some exploitative scenes. There's a really strange scene early on, for instance, where the older brother and sister run off hand-in-hand and go skinny-dipping in a particularly filthy-looking pond while hippy-dippy early seventies music plays. I think this is supposed to show the innocence of the characters. But while the actors are not voluptuous "Lil Abner"-esquire caricatures typically found in these kinds of movies, they don't really look "sixteen" either, let alone as young and impossibly naive as they act. It is mostly this pair that is preyed at the carnival--and mostly sexually of course--but (for better or worse) this movie really fails up to live up to its lurid alternate title "The Young Prey".

At times the movie seems to be trying to be a comedy such as when the mother tells a town magistrate that she named her oldest son J.C., not after Jesus Christ, but because there was a sale at J.C. Penney's the week he was born. The comedy falls flat though usually and the movie falls back on it's generic early 70's weirdness. (Of course, I LIKE early 70's weirdness, but others may prefer a movie with more broad comedy and hillbilly sex). The only recognizable star is Mercedes McCambridge, who appeared in several European Jess Franco films AND provided Linda Blair's demonic voice in "The Exorcist". The older daughter is played by a pretty enough actress (even if she won't make anyone forget about "Daisy Mae Clampet" or "Daisy Duke" ). The youngest son called "Brother" looks vaguely familiar and I think was an early 70's TV actor. But I've said enough. Check this out if it sounds interesting to you.

I watched trailer for this and decided it couldn't be as bad as it appeared. Wrong. This is listed as "drama" I guess because there is no"waste if time" category. I may have seen this (sort of) film in a double feature at a drive-in on a date. That's because the story, the dialogue and the acting were so bad that you didn't miss anything if you only concentrated on your date. There are a ton of filler scenes, and overly long reaction shots of mostly the entire cast just staring at each other instead of saying anything. The ending is just as stupid as the rest of the film. Weren't there statutory rape laws back in the 70s?

my current girlfriend was in the movie as an extra.she lived in Georgia at the time.the film was awful.in her scene she was supposed to look at one of the other actors up and down when he walked into the bar.she was also had dance scene.the actor she was supposed to look at was the one who played the stunt rider at the carnival.i have been looking for this movie for some time now to surprise her.my wife tells me that the actor who played the stunt rider wanted her to be his point of view.she tells me they had to do three or four takes on that scene.the stunt riders point of view was supposed to be on the young girl who was SIXTEEN.after the scene was completed the actor said he wished that she was his point of view.

If you see on the trivia section how much this exploitation borrows from the classic semi-musical STATE FAIR, that's because I wrote that, and this...

In the 1945 classic, a hick family goes to a fair where the virginal teenage sister falls for an exciting and confident older fella, while big brother falls for a pretty woman who works as an entertainer there... at the fair...

Trade in a singer for a stripper, and a newspaperman for a motorcycle daredevil and here it is: What's basically a remake, and all the exploitation relies on the gorgeous titular SIXTEEN year old sister played by Simone Griffeth, an extremely gorgeous girl... as was Jeanne Crain, by the way...

Not bad for what anyone would consider bad with the low budget and all... Has the pace of a drive-in flick, and some nudity and sex to wake up the audience, as intended, who went for just that...

The setup has the family getting a nice payday, and the townspeople trying their best to separate them from it...

SIXTEEN did have more tiers than just the teenage blonde, but wound up with pretty much her and her only. After all, it's HER movie. Although there is more action with the stripper, trying to pry into the family money while, also like STATE FAIR, has a jealous boyfriend. Seriously, this IS a remake, no matter what it says, or doesn't say.