Wicked, Wicked

Filmed, using the modern miracle that is "Duo-Vision" (aka: split screen), WICKED, WICKED is about an enormous hotel, and the psychopathic killer that lurks there. Though it's obvious who the murderer is from the beginning, this movie is quite entertaining and even boasts a nice "shock" finale.

Rick Stewart is serviceable as the womanizing sleuth on the case, while Randolph Roberts is perfectly cast as the bug-eyed maniac. There's also a cavalcade of oddball characters and the hyper-intense Scott Brady in another hard-nosed, barking cop role. Watch for Roger Bowen as the sniveling, reputation-obsessed hotel manager.

Is this a classic film? Well, no, but it is a lot of fun to watch. However, you might have to watch it twice in order to avoid eyeball whiplash...

OK, if you've heard anything about this movie, it's that the entire thing is in split-screen. 1970 was in the period when movie gimmicks were dying; William Castle had turned to producing with "Rosemary's Baby" and given up directing, 3-D was dead, and the audience participation concept was eradicated. "Wicked Wicked" must have been a nice return to the selling gimmick. Only this time, you didn't get items as a gimmick (bloody axes, 3-D glasses, plastic coins, barf bags), the whole movie viewing experience was a gimmick. Unfortunately, the makers of the movie thought that the split-screen effects would make "Wicked Wicked" a great film. In fact, it's just the opposite.

I have always loved the idea of split-screen techniques used in movies (employed heartily by Brian dePalma for "Carrie", "Dressed to Kill", and others) and jumped at the chance of seeing this when I heard of the gimmick. Here's the final verdict: fun to watch, just don't take it seriously. The plot is flimsy (a murderer is stalking a hotel) and most of the acting horrible. But how can a movie go wrong with Tiffany Bolling in the cast? Beautiful blonde Tiffany Bolling spends half the movie in a black wig, the other with her gorgeous blond locks playing a lounge singer stalked by the killer. This woman steals the show, just like she does in "Kingdom of the Spiders" and "The Candy Snatchers". The music is atmospheric and makes for great background music, but is finally pushed to the point of head-splitting annoyance!

If you enjoy split-screen and Tiffany Bolling, watch the movie. If not, you will probably find the whole thing tedious (which most of it is) and a cheap attempt to win an audience. Doesn't work a horror film, but will definitely win a larger cult if MGM just releases this on video (likewise with "Night of the Lepus" and "Private Parts"!).

"Wicked, Wicked" was a film that I waited with such anticipation to see at the age of 12 - after seeing the promo trailer on television and the poster in the theater my curiosity was aroused.

I loved films as a child - any film. As long as it seemed like an event. I was not big on classics at the time so my catalog was being developed. I don't think that at the time it was supposed to be a great film.

It was fun however. And later in 1976 - when my parents owned a theater I persuaded my father to get "Wicked, Wicked" as a second feature for "Demon Seed" - it is a fun film and only for the excitement as "Earthquake" has Sensurround as a gimmick - "DUO-VISION" was the gimmick.

See it for the excitement - not for the logging into your classic diary. It does make you laugh and wonder about the time period. Not much different from today - I have walked out on several of todays movie, while sitting through all of "Wicked, Wicked" as a child.

It is fun!!!

This movie has several strikes against it from the outset. First off, is the split-screen ("duo-vision") gimmick, which is effective when used sparingly by filmmakers like Brian DePalma (or going WAY back silent French filmmaker Abel Gance), but is pretty annoying when used extensively (check out the ill-advised sequel "More American Graffitti"), and likely to give many viewers a splitting headache. Then there is the killer who is stalking a seaside hotel. The movie not only makes no attempt to hide his identity from the start, but the clues he leaves along the way are so incredibly obvious that you want to scream at the protagonist (a dimwitted, womanizing security guard)for not being able to figure out who he is. Finally there's the wretched theme song ("Wicked, wicked, that's the ticket. . .") that was apparently actually sung by actress Tiffany Bolling, who should have stuck to stripping off in bad movies like this (and speaking a stripping off, Bolling takes her usual gratuitous shower in this movie behind a particularly opaque shower curtain, just to add insult to injury).

Despite all this though, I kind of enjoyed this movie. It has an enjoyably nasty sense of humor, and only in the 1970's could anyone possibly get away with making a wrongheaded experiment in cinematic ineptitude like this and still have it backed by a major studio (MGM). As for those who find this misogynistic or offensive, check out a couple other Tiffany Bolling vehicles/feminist treatises "The Candy Snatchers" and "Centerfold Girls" sometime!

I can hardly begin to express what a disgusting, worthless piece of excrement this film is. When you consider how much talent there is in film-making, to know that a major studio (admittedly, on its last legs) funded this garbage makes you want to grab a sharp implement.

Why is it so awful? All right (deep breath):

1. The split screen. It's distracting. It adds nothing to the narrative. It isn't used to make a point (as Tarantino does in Jackie Brown). It's just there as a selling feature.

2. The performances. God help us.

3. The script. God continue to help us.

4. The story itself. Who the hell thought this would be an original idea?

5. The child abuse sequences. So appallingly exploitative, so unworthily sickening, so POINTLESS...I wanted to throw something at the TV.

6. The tacky tone. The sexual puns are puerile beyond belief. The Farrelly brothers would never have stooped this low.

7. The theme song. Still stuck in my head after about 10 years. GO AWAY!!!!

There are plenty of other reasons why this obscenity should be thrown into the Pit of Hell, but I really can't bear to go any further. Every copy of this should be consigned to fire, and everybody involved in it should be taken outside and shot, their bodies burnt, their ashes buried and the whole site concreted over.

If this diatribe persuades people to go and see it, it has failed in its mission. Don't ever employ its maker to do anything again, I implore you.

The least enjoyable bad film ever made. Can I give it a minus score, please?