The Undertaker and His Pals

What a weird little treat this one is. The cinematography is interesting at times. It starts off on a visually interesting note and held my interest the whole time. The acting is fine. There are some jokes and the thing moves along very fast, too fast to get bored.

Sure it's not Hitchcock, but for low-budget fun, this one makes the grade. The special effects are sometimes a little weak, but all in all they made a very consistent effort in this picture. Give me this over Con Air any day.

I did not at all regret seeing this, and that is pretty high praise as far as I'm concerned. It's a fun relic from 1967, if you like movies and have a sense of humor and the absurd, you'll probably see this as time well spent.

There are so many posts about how horrible of a film this is, but honestly I'd rather watch this cheese-fest than any horror movie coming out today. Yeah, the jokes in this film are stupid. Even the violence is stupid. It's cheap! And that's what I liked about it. Look at the tag line! B Movies from the 1960's should not be taken too seriously and anyone who comments on how terrible this film is obviously did. If you watch this movie for scares, you're not going to get them. If you watch this movie as a fan of 1960's exploitation/horror, you'll probably enjoy it. Just pop it in with a smile on your face and you'll enjoy this so-called "hour of wasted time and life." LOL. Come on people, lighten up!

You gotta love this flick about funeral homes and greasy spoon dinners.I'm sure there's a message here but who cares? Canabalism was never so funny.Maybe I'm sick,but I loved it.What's not to like when a fresh killed victims body part is offered as a daily special at the dinner as the rest is displayed at the funeral home.Sick,yes,but done with flair.

One of those movies that is more famous/infamous than it's good -- or even seen. TLP Swicegood's horror farce had such a gonzo title and ad campaign that the monster mags and genre books couldn't help but take note. It also got a longer than usual run at drive-ins and grindhouses helped no doubt by it's brief 63 minute run-time (which made it a perfect bottom of the bill flick for double and triple features).

Very much part of the first wave of true gore films in the 60s, it can't help but be compared to H. G. Lewis' movies of the era, particularly BLOOD FEAST. Like Lewis, Swicegood used humor to try and soften the grue in order to evade local censors. It was T. V. Mikels who gave the film its most fame when he bought it to accompany his CORPSE GRINDERS and THE EMBALMER as a triple feature - editing out some 15 to 20 minutes in the process. Like most of Lewis and Mikels' work, Swicegood's direction is so anemic that the bloody murders hardly make an impact outside of a chuckle or two (or revulsion to others). They certainly aren't suspenseful nor frightening.

The cast is made up largely of unknowns save for Robert Lowery in a bit part. Karen Ciral and Sally Frei had relatively brief careers as B movie starlets, while Ray Dannis as the title character had a slightly larger one, as did James Westmoreland. The actors give it their all (particularly Dannis), but the material is weak and the jokes are mostly sour and lame. A couple of gags land, but, it's mostly rough going. In this case, Mikels' slashing of footage is a gift to viewers.

It says a lot when the best part of the entire film is the closing credits, which further pull the rug out from audiences by winking at them. The sequence is actually genuinely amusing if far too little too late.

This very well may be the first slasher film ever made, and the really weird thing, it is also the first parody of a slasher film ever made.

Therein lies a real social-historical problem: how can the film effectively creating the genre at the same time parody the genre, which doesn't come into existence until the film is released? First, a qualification: What makes a slasher film is extremely graphic gratuitous violence against helpless women, using a long knife as preferred weapon.

Arguably, the real "first" of the genre may have been "Psycho"; but "Psycho" was an exceptional film, and stands out from most of the rest of the genre. And it's in black & white, while a true slasher film requires blood-glaring color (which "Undertaker" has, and remarkably well-kept for its age). I prefer to think of "Psycho" as a precursor.

But "Undertaker" is, first of all, nothing special as a film. (It's just low-budget drive-in fodder, intended to be ignored by the teen-agers necking in the back seat.) Secondly, it takes sadistic-voyeur pleasure in showing us the violence and the blood. Finally, it shows self-consciousness concerning the sadistic-voyeurism, meaning that it is intended to appeal to the very worst instincts in its target audience.

And that makes it pure genre film - well, almost.

As I said, it is also a parody of this genre - in the most outrageous way. The sales pitch the undertaker offers potential customers is genuinely amusing, and the killers repeatedly debunk themselves as silly mad-scientist types that only happen to run a failing diner. What's going on here? There can be only one answer, logically: the film-makers here are actually parodying another genre film.

Perhaps "Psycho" can help us out here, after all. It must be remembered that a major influence on Hitchcock's's film was the motel sequence in Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil". That episode was itself influenced by the '50s "JD" (juvenile delinquent) films that frequently had middle-class suburban families found suddenly in the grip of a punk or a gang of young punks (the most famous being Brando's "The Wild One"). And the JD film was itself a clear off-shoot from the standard B-movie crime-thriller of the early '50s, which is simply a sub-genre of the "police procedural" (e.g., "Dragnet").

So, what "Undertaker" is really spoofing here is the police procedural.

So the indirect progenitor of the slasher film is - Jack Webb's "Dragnet". That's a little unsettling, but true.

At any rate, I'm not a big fan of slasher films, and I only watched this film a second time because it is, so clearly, an historical oddity. And it's real weird that directors like Welles and Webb (who have nothing else in common but this) should, in trying to explore the social significance of socio-pathic crime, point the way for audiences to enjoy such violence voyeuristically in the slasher film. That's cause for reflection.

Which makes "Undertaker", if only for history's sake, a very, very weird little film.

Not recommended for enjoyment, but a must-see for film-history buffs.