Confessions of a Psycho Cat

Or, if you like King Kong, holy mackerel, whadda show! This movie is out of control, a great original idea, sick beyond belief and genuinely creepy (yet arousing) at times; the craziness of the whole shebang is heightened by the fact that some of the characters - not least Eileen Lord as Virginia - seem to be genuinely insane. Garrett is perhaps the craziest of the lot, just being himself, dancing around with his broomstick, doffing his top hat to all and sundry and generally munching away on anything that passes by in his time-honoured fashion.

This decidedly odd little cult classic doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be. On one hand, it's a violent thriller, on another it's an absurd comedy; and it's all filmed in the style 'nouvelle vogue' style of films such as Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless! This sort of curio coming together can sometimes work well together, but the result with this film seems more messy than anything else, and while I imagine Quentin Tarantino got quite a kick out of this, I didn't...at least, not really. There are actually some really good scenes in this film, such the 'bull fighting' scene and the ending, but the way that these scenes are implemented in the plot doesn't offer much in the way of interest, which harms the finished product. The plot is no doubt interesting, and follows a young woman who invites three men to her house. After telling them of a game, she sends them away with the knowledge that once they receive a cheque for $100,000 from her, they will have to survive 24 hours in Manhattan before being allowed to cash it in. The only catch here is that she'll be hunting them down...

The plot takes obvious influence from the 1932 classic 'The Most Dangerous Game' as it follows the idea of a human prey, but it's also obvious that Herb Stanley's film isn't too interested in it's plot, and more concerned with jumping on the sixties exploitation bandwagon, as many scenes (sex scenes in particular) exist for no other reason than to ensure that the film got the exploitation classification. This actually got on my nerves as the plot is interesting; yet not a great deal of screen time is devoted to it. The way that the film has an upper class woman as the hunter is fun, and the juxtaposition between her class status and the game she's playing works well in establishing her insanity. The acting leaves a lot to be desired, with only 'Raging Bull' himself Jake LaMotta standing out for the cult fans in the support cast (and standing out for all the wrong reasons, I might add). Eileen Lord is good, however, in her role as the title character and overall, while this film didn't appeal to me much - exploitation fans should be happy and it gets a recommendation to anyone who likes their odd cult films.

Genuine oddity in the world of grindhouse trash, this is a well rendered film that gives a fresh twist to a fairly unoriginal story. An eccentric woman assembles the ultimate hunt...and it's man season! A group of selected males must survive a single night as they are stalked for the kill...if they live, they win a large sum of cash. Comical and over-the-top, this is wild sleaze given the irritating sexploitation insert treatment(lengthy scenes of softcore sex, unrelated to the story)...still worth watching. 7/10

CONFESSIONS OF A PSYCHO CAT (1968) ** (D: Herb Stanley) Enjoyable-enough take on "The Most Dangerous Game" has an insane woman inviting three men to her NYC apartment and offering each $100,000 if they survive 24 hours in Manhattan with her hunting them down. Wild sex and orgy scenes are utilized to pad things out. Interesting to see shots of NYC, spotting familiar landmarks like the Dakota building.

This is an interesting late 60's sexploitation film. It's basically a loose remake of "The Most Dangerous Game" except that the person hunting humans is a sexy woman, her victims are criminals who have gotten away with their crimes (usually murder), and her hunting ground, rather than an island, is all of New York City! Of course, there's also plenty of sexploitation filler. One of the victims, for instance, hides out at a friend's apartment where a seemingly non-stop orgy is taking place. There's also a ridiculous scene where a large-breasted (but not particularly attractive) "actress", who probably couldn't deliver a convincing line reading if you put a gun to her head, is sitting topless in a room carrying on a dialogue with a guy who was obviously not even in the same room. This is obviously "padding", but I don't know that it was "inserts" added later by someone else as was the case with movies like "The Curious Dr. Humpp" because, while that film was originally an Argentinean horror movie, this was obviously always intended for the NYC "grindhouse" sexploitation market.

Obviously the sex scenes add nothing to the plot, but at least this HAS a plot. These 60's sexploitation movies differ from later porno movies in that they often did have some purpose beyond getting the male audience off. Some of the best ones actually took advantage of their "captive audience", throwing in the obligatory sex scenes, but also attempting to actually make a real movie--and sometimes even getting away with things the mainstream movies couldn't (they were kind of like horror movie in that respect). This isn't as creative as something like "Toys Are Not for Children" or "Swinger's Massacre", but it does have appeal beyond the merely prurient.

This could be considered a "roughie", one of the films of this era that combined violence with softcore sex in lieu of hardcore scenes (which were still illegal at the time). These films courted controversy, then and now, because some people believed they were trying to make violence sexy. I like them though, not because the violence is "sexy", but because it tends to make the sex less boring. These movies are generally much less monotonous than the straight sex films that came later. In any event, this is one of your more palatable "roughies" because the violence is aimed almost exclusively at men (which no one can really claim is "sexy") and the victims really deserve it (both for their on screen crimes and the generally inept performances of the actors). This is not great, but it's not a total waste of a time either.