Mujeres domadas

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.

The lead character does seem to always end up as somebodies pet. First it's a African American Hooker, then a Lesbian painter, then, finally, Ed Bishop as art gallery owner. There are also various little furry friends the various characters own. So that's the thread that runs through this.

It is not a white chick & black chick ride through the night kind of sleazy buddy film that the DVD version seems to be sold as.

It is not particularly well made, the DVD source print is among the worst you'll see (though still worth watching if). It's not amateur time but it's pretty rough around most edges production. The paintings featured are well done and the topless portrait of Candace would be a great collectors item--where oh where is that now? It's better produced than other 70's drive in stuff but very limited in what it can afford to do. Climax which potentially could involve a live tiger ends very quickly for example.

The music is a "Everybodies talking' at me" attempt at ballads and then no score at all. Which hurt as the movie seems to lose energy by the end. In fact the first nearly 40 minutes consists of about 4 scenes one of which lasts at least 15 minutes. So it's not fast paced exploitation, this is fairly low budget affair, don't expect any car crashes.

You can expect some nudity and you'll get it and be pretty happy with what you get. Star Candace does well in the part and certainly willing to go all out when required. Ed Bishop is fun but doesn't really get to cut loose as much as you might hope during the last section of the film.

Not much prolonged violence in this film and it has less and less exploitation as it goes along. Again it's worth a watch if you're in the mood, just know what it is and isn't. The film does take its' time with story, the characters aren't very deep. You think that's a flaw? Well it wouldn't be except that's sort of what you're left with in this film after awhile. It may well have some aspirations to be sort of a "Sleazy Rider" only all of it takes place within about 30 minutes drive of Malibu and Santa Monica. A few nice views of some old rotting piers that are now gone from the coast line. Some 70s music score would have helped sounds like they had to buy canned music and again not very much music other than the songs, which are kind of fun in a bad way. Mostly this film is for fans of Candace or may help create new fans of hers. Certainly this works better than the wretched CHATTER BOX. You can see why she stopped making movies with titles like that in her resume. But this is early on and she seems ready to be a cool 70's chick in exploitation movies which sort of did and sort of didn't happen for her.

A cool 70's runaway flick. Lots of trampy goings on and sleazy softcore sex. Interesting angle at the end with the "Collector" character but this film ultimately is nothing to get too excited about.

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.

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.