Wicked, Wicked

Wicked, Wicked is unique in that it is shot entirely in DUO-VISION (a gimmick of early 1970's cimena). Brian DePalma used this technique with great success in both Carrie and Phantom of the Paradise. The problem here is that Richard Bare is no Brian DePalma and the story is completely idiotic.

the one saving grace of this film is the moment at which the duo-vision becomes "uni-vision" during the climactic moment of the story. You have to see it to appreciate the greatness of that one shot. Perhaps the director came up with that idea and then made a whole story around it?

Movie takes place at a huge seaside hotel in California. In it handyman Jason (Randolph Roberts) attacks and kills blonde women. He then hides the bodies so they just go missing. The hotel has a security man searching for the people and beautiful Lisa James (Tiffany Bolling) is hired to sing there. She has black hair...but decides to wear a blonde wig which has Jason after her.

This was the first (and last) film shot in "Duo Vision"--basically a split screen used in 99.9% of the film (there are a few shots in the film not using it). It actually works pretty good sometimes. You see a person on one side of the screen and see what he's thinking of on the other. Still, it's just basically a gimmick to sell the film (it didn't work). The story itself is familiar and the killings are pretty non-bloody (this has a PG rating), but the acting itself is actually not half bad and the film kept my interest. Not a camp classic by any means but an OK film with a well-used split screen process. I give this a 7.

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"!).

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?

With the split screen there are two stories being told with 2 soundtracks. Frequently, the dialogue side is turned down so that it can't be heard over sounds from the other half. It's extremely annoying and reduces any interest in watching the rest of the film.

Was it that poorly mixed for theaters, too, or was this just a bad copy on TCM?

I was also amused by the organist playing some random mood music. We see the sheet music for the piano score for the 1925 PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, but the notes visible in some shots are not the ones being played. It may be legit Phantom music, but who knows for sure?

Other reviewers here have sufficiently summarized the rest of the film.