Drive-In-Freak

I wanted to like it. I really did. It would seem to me that it had all of the ingredients that should make for an interesting flick. All of the elements are there...nudity, sex, and violence. Dare I say it's even somewhat historically relevant as it takes thing a step further than the "roughies" that came before it.

The only problem is that it's incredibly dull. Seemingly endless scenes of walking around in circles followed by more of the same. The soft-core scenes were...well, I've never seen anything like it. It's almost like they were afraid of each other, or had never even seen people together let alone done anything with anyone themselves. Kinda like what maybe a six year old would think people do. It's not that I was looking for hardcore sex as much as I don't think I've ever seen anything less erotic that's supposed to be erotic.

There is a substantial amount of nudity (sometimes full frontal at that). The women are quite attractive too. You'd think that would be enough to keep everything afloat, but after a while it grows thin. Yea...I know. I wouldn't think it was possible either, but they managed to find a way.

Well there's always the violence, right? Not really. The idea behind it, perhaps, but the execution left a lot to be desired. What should be the most simple of effects comes off about as poorly as possible.

I'm very forgiving of low budget flicks. Hell I'm not only tolerant of them, but usually take a great deal of pleasure from what I call the "cheeze element". Sadly even that's not enough to save this one.

What could be better than Dave Friedman and Herschell Gordon Lewis lampooning themselves and the sexploitation industry? Well...OK, fine.. a lot of things, but it's fun to watch just the same.

Two aspiring filmmakers get their start in the "nudie cutie" business after watching a Daughter of the Sun w/ The Adventures of Lucky Pierre double feature (two previous Lewis/Friedman productions).

" A great picture. One of the worst I've ever seen" "Sensational. I don't know when I've seen such...lousy acting or phony scenery" "I'll bet we could make a movie as good as that..or as bad" "The posters are more important than the pictures anyway"

With that off they go to produce a flick. Only everything that could go wrong does. Cheezy comedy and seemingly endless footage of T&A ensues.

Friedman and Lewis leave the nudie cutie business with a bang. They saved the best for last. If you're curios to see their early work this one is a good place to start.

It's blatantly obvious Andy Milligan is not to blame for this awful flick. He was used as a (believe it or not) promotional tool. His name appears no less than eight times on the VHS box. There's even an unflattering picture of him on it's spine.

None of the usual Milligan trademarks are to be found here at all..none of his usual themes or caricatures. He was a hired hand working with someone else's (Sid Caplan and Sherman Hirsh) awful screenplay. It's almost like the writers where looking for someone to blame even after trying to cash in on his name....read the review titled "SURGIKILL should have been better. Andy Milligan does not deserve all the blame" written by someone who claims to be Sherman Hirsh. I have no reason to doubt he is who he claims to be, after all who would fake it?

While it's true that Milligan may not have been the best director, or technically savvy filmmaker, this film goes far beyond that. You just can't make chicken soup out of..well..you know the rest. Even Steven Spielberg couldn't have helped the almost painfully bad script and screenplay.

The worst part of it all is that this was the last film to have Andy Milligan's name attached to it..even if it's not really his film. Admittedly it would be hard to tarnish his image (after all he had to work with the limitations of extremely low budgets..often under $10,000..during his entire career), but this film managed to do just that. I think he deserved to go out on a much higher note than this. It's a shame really.