Una mujer huye de su hermano abusivo, aceptando ayuda de extraños. Aunque la explotan, se vuelve más sabia mientras busca alguien de corazón puro como ella.Una mujer huye de su hermano abusivo, aceptando ayuda de extraños. Aunque la explotan, se vuelve más sabia mientras busca alguien de corazón puro como ella.Una mujer huye de su hermano abusivo, aceptando ayuda de extraños. Aunque la explotan, se vuelve más sabia mientras busca alguien de corazón puro como ella.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Candice Rialson
- Bonnie
- (as Candy Rialson)
Teri Guzman
- Pat
- (as Teri Guzmán)
Frank Parker
- Dan Daubrey
- (as Bret Parker)
Berry Kroeger
- The Art Connoisseur
- (as Barry Kroeger)
Opiniones destacadas
Young runaway, Bonnie (Candice Rialson), gets herself into pickle after pickle for a little over 90 minutes and you do ask yourself "what's the point of this all again?" Still, it's incredibly entertaining to watch Bonnie get involved with a not-so-friendly hustler who uses a squirt gun to terrorize men, a possessive lesbian artist who wants Bonnie all to herself, a random drifter, and, finally, a perverted art collector who wants to keep Bonnie as one of his pets.
The story is basically just a series of vignettes and it's as if the writers wrote one of them, came back to the story a few years later, wrote another, and so on and so forth. They feel oddly disconnected and our protagonist never really does much of anything besides thumb rides and accept too good to be true offers from strangers. I'm assuming there's something to be said about female liberation during the film's climax, but who knows?
Pets' messaging might be weird, but it's never less than entertaining and more than worth your time.
The story is basically just a series of vignettes and it's as if the writers wrote one of them, came back to the story a few years later, wrote another, and so on and so forth. They feel oddly disconnected and our protagonist never really does much of anything besides thumb rides and accept too good to be true offers from strangers. I'm assuming there's something to be said about female liberation during the film's climax, but who knows?
Pets' messaging might be weird, but it's never less than entertaining and more than worth your time.
I recently watched Pets (1973) on Tubi. The story follows a young woman escaping an abusive home life, only to find herself navigating the streets, unsure of who to trust and who will exploit her. Just when she thinks she understands both sides of the track, her world is turned upside down.
Directed by Raphael Nussbaum (Speak of the Devil), the film stars Joan Blackman (Blue Hawaii), Ed Bishop (2001: A Space Odyssey), Candice Rialson (Hollywood Boulevard), and K. T. Stevens (Corrina, Corrina).
This is a '70s grindhouse film with a distinct feel. The main character is wild and unpredictable, leading the story through unexpected twists and turns. The writing is better than expected, with over-the-top dialogue and outrageous circumstances that make for entertaining moments. A particular dog scene is hilarious, and the dance and "water fun" sequence is definitely memorable. The conclusion perfectly ties together the film's unpredictable journey.
Overall, Pets is a unique and worthwhile entry in the grindhouse genre. I'd give it a 6.5/10 and strongly recommend.
Directed by Raphael Nussbaum (Speak of the Devil), the film stars Joan Blackman (Blue Hawaii), Ed Bishop (2001: A Space Odyssey), Candice Rialson (Hollywood Boulevard), and K. T. Stevens (Corrina, Corrina).
This is a '70s grindhouse film with a distinct feel. The main character is wild and unpredictable, leading the story through unexpected twists and turns. The writing is better than expected, with over-the-top dialogue and outrageous circumstances that make for entertaining moments. A particular dog scene is hilarious, and the dance and "water fun" sequence is definitely memorable. The conclusion perfectly ties together the film's unpredictable journey.
Overall, Pets is a unique and worthwhile entry in the grindhouse genre. I'd give it a 6.5/10 and strongly recommend.
Pets (1973)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Bonnie (Candice Rialson) ran away from home but her older brother is forcing her back. When Bonnie gets her chance she escapes from him and heads back out on her own where life takes her in a few different directions and with a few different strange people.
PETS is a film that tells you a little of what to expect just by looking at its poster. The poster with a scantly clad lady is clearly telling people that they're walking into a sexploitation film but if you're expecting all T&A and nothing else then you might be disappointed because PETS actually tries to be a character study and I think for the most part it works well.
There's no doubt that the greatest thing about the picture is the performance of Rialson. Is she in the same league as Meryl Streep? Of course not but then again this type of film isn't asking for that type of performance. I thought the actress was very believable in the part and there's no question that she was very easy on the eyes and this here made the sexploitation works flawlessly. Her character has to act with several others and there's no doubt that Rialson just controls the film throughout.
There's no doubt that the film does have some flaws including a few characters that aren't all that interesting but at the same time the movie delivers a rather interesting look at a runaway and the various bad situations she finds herself in. Is PETS a masterpiece? No but it's at least entertaining and worth watching.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Bonnie (Candice Rialson) ran away from home but her older brother is forcing her back. When Bonnie gets her chance she escapes from him and heads back out on her own where life takes her in a few different directions and with a few different strange people.
PETS is a film that tells you a little of what to expect just by looking at its poster. The poster with a scantly clad lady is clearly telling people that they're walking into a sexploitation film but if you're expecting all T&A and nothing else then you might be disappointed because PETS actually tries to be a character study and I think for the most part it works well.
There's no doubt that the greatest thing about the picture is the performance of Rialson. Is she in the same league as Meryl Streep? Of course not but then again this type of film isn't asking for that type of performance. I thought the actress was very believable in the part and there's no question that she was very easy on the eyes and this here made the sexploitation works flawlessly. Her character has to act with several others and there's no doubt that Rialson just controls the film throughout.
There's no doubt that the film does have some flaws including a few characters that aren't all that interesting but at the same time the movie delivers a rather interesting look at a runaway and the various bad situations she finds herself in. Is PETS a masterpiece? No but it's at least entertaining and worth watching.
One of the guilty pleasures of the 70's drive-in movies was the runaway/hitch-hiker movies. Some sexy mujer dressed in a skimpy halter top and short-shorts or a micro-mini with her hip cocked and her thumb stuck out, hitching a ride while cheesy, hippy-dippy 70's music plays on the soundtrack. In the sexy hitchhiker sweepstakes, Candace Rialson edges out Misty Rowe in "The Hitchikers" mainly because she went on to have a minor exploitation career and a bit part as a co-ed who tries to seduce Clint Eastwood in the "Eiger Sanction", while Misty Rowe went on to, uh, "Hee Haw". Like "The Hitchikers" this film (Rialson's debut) is cheerfully amoral and completely directionless. Rialson's character ties up a middle-age lech who offers her a ride and rapes HIM (that'll teach him) while her partner-in-crime throws his dog off a cliff. She then moves in with a lesbian artist but is too dense to realize it until they end up in bed together. Of course, she can't resist also getting it on with a random guy who breaks into their house, so the jealous lesbian shoots him. She runs away and finally ends up on a leash in some rich weirdo's private zoo (obviously this was NOT a feminist film). There's not as much sex as you'd expect, but Rialson is topless or seriously under-dressed most of the movie.
While "Pets" might be shelved among other "erotic thrillers", it's much too relaxed for that genre, and sexuality is generally portrayed as fun, not dangerous. Dangerous, here, is linked with possessiveness, and so the movie is firmly grounded in the 60s with their non-possessive ways. Also very 60ish - the meandering plot, with our "heroine" Bonnie (nice play) drifting through various more or less strange episodes and always getting some satisfaction out of it.
The small scale of the production is clearly visible (sometimes painfully) and takes away some enjoyment, but overall Pets is a fun romp with very few boring moments and some real erotic tension without much sleaze.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaMike Cartel, who played Candice Rialson's brother in the Pets film, assisted producer-director Raphael Nussbaum for the casting of the ingenue lead. Cartel acted in video-taped G-rated romantic scenes opposite some 20 actresses before Rialson was chosen for the part of Bonnie, and her first speaking role.
- ConexionesFeatured in Dusk to Dawn Drive-In Trash-o-Rama Show Vol. 1 (1996)
- Bandas sonorasSearching
Written by Chic Sorenson
Sung by Terri Rinaldi
Music Supervisor Ralph Grasso
Recorded at Seagull
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Pets?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Pets
- Locaciones de filmación
- Ports of Call Village, Port of Los Angeles, Los Ángeles, California, Estados Unidos(Bonnie and Geraldine's Whalers Wharf scene)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Spanish language plot outline for Mujeres domadas (1973)?
Responda