Avis des utilisateurs

Proving Ed Wood can write just as well as he can direct, his script The Violent Years is brought to life by another director, and the result is still not good. The Violent Years comes out of an age-old theme that people mistakenly think is recent- "Today's kids are out of control and it wasn't like that when I was that age!" Except, people have been saying that forever. Check the date of the film- 1956, remembered now as a golden, Leave It to Beaver age. Like the later A Clockwork Orange, this has a gang of four teens robbing and raping- intriguingly, these four are all girls, which makes it harder to sympathize for the man who is raped- this is more male fantasy than horror.

The film starts with the girl's parents up in front of a judge, who speaks about how hard it is to try a good friend. This is indeed hard, because judges can't do it at all- they have to recuse themselves. And since when can bad parenting be punished by the law? Much of what follows is ham-handed exploration of the kind of parenting that breeds delinquency- a mom who says her daughter's issues can't be all that important. And, skipping your kid's birthdays causes crime. The girls attempting to be bad leads to leaden dialogue and acting and cheesy lines. One woman needs to be told by the man that the girls are pointing guns at them, at which point the girls compliment him for being observant. The worst the woman who gives the gang its jobs can call the girls is "jerks."

Of course, it all ends with more "If only I had..." mourning from the parents, reflecting a morality play with all the subtlety of being hit over the head with a hammer.

I was concerned when I saw that "The Violent Years" was only written by Ed Wood, but was directed by William Morgan. I was concerned that it might come off as something other than an Ed Wood movie. Yet if you had to guess who directed this one without know anything about the movie, then I'm sure most b-movie lovers would guess it was Ed Wood.

"The Violent Years" has everything you could want out of an Ed Wood directed and written movie. Bad dialogue, bad editing and ham acting plague "The Violent Years" as much as any other Ed Wood production.

"The Violent Years" follows the exploits of a gang of four school girls led by the daughter of the local newspaper publisher. The "girls" all look like actresses who are closer to 30 than 20, but nobody should care since this is an Ed Wood written production. The girls get their thrills by staging armed robberies of gas stations and unarmed lover's lane couples. Along the way we get to see hilariously bad shoot out and crash scenes, an even more hilarious scene where the girls "rape" a man they discover making out with his girlfriend at the local lover's lane, and arguably the most hilarious monologue by a judge in film history.

The aspect of an Ed Wood written film that provides me with the most amusement is the dialogue. Like the above mentioned monologue by the judge. No judge would write a decision in a court case like the one we hear in "The Violent Years", except if he were at least as drunk as Ed Wood was when he wrote it. People just don't talk like they do in an Ed Wood movie, and this has provided many an Ed Wood movie viewer with many laughs over the years.

"The Violent Years" is there for the Ed Wood fan. It doesn't have much to offer to people who like to see good film making when they see a movie. However, if you're looking for an exercise in film making ineptitude for laughs, then "The Violent Years" is your movie.

Please note: My score of 2 does NOT mean that this film isn't fun. In fact, THE VIOLENT YEARS is a wonderful film to watch. Just don't assume this makes it a good film or a picture made by competent film makers! No, its watchability is because it is so bad...so incredibly lacking in any subtlety that make it a must-see for bad movie fans. In other words, if you like laughing at films such as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, then this film is definitely for you! The film begins with a judge lecturing two parents and basically saying that any time a teen goes bad it is because the parents are to blame! While this is true in some cases, the film pounds home this contention with all the subtlety and grace of a 2x4 being smacked repeatedly against your head!! As the judge is talking, the mother begins to think back about recent events and wonder if she DID have anything to do with her daughter becoming a menace to society.

This daughter turns out to be like a Jekyll and Hyde sort of person--acting sweet in front of Mom and being an evil thrill-seeking idiot outside the home. For kicks, she and her three friends rob gas stations, destroy schools and rape men. Oddly, however, they are not caught for the longest time because you can only assume everyone in the town (especially the cops) are idiots! The girls leave lots of fingerprints and other evidence behind but the cops conclude at one point that it's the work of a gang of men from another town!! While the girls DID disguise themselves for one of the robberies, it's pretty obvious they weren't guys!!! And, when they raped a man and left him and his girlfriend as witnesses, don't you think they could have identified the girls?! And, later in the film, when one of the father's co-workers comes to the house and one of the girls' boyfriends pulls a knife and threatens the visitor, don't you think perhaps this MIGHT have clued somebody in to the fact that the girl and her friends were up to no good?! Regardless, the bad acting and silly script is very watchable in a salacious and laughable sort of way--particularly if you enjoy laughing at such films as REEFER MADNESS, SEX MADNESS or HIGH SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL. Plus, it is just funny seeing the actors(?) having trouble with their lines (such as the judge who appears to be reading his lines as he talks to the parents) and the inconsistent and brainless writing (for which Ed Wood was responsible). I particularly loved it when two of the bad girls just told a crook that they shot a cop---and then this crook picks up the phone and tries to call the police! Didn't they just say they killed a policeman?! Didn't you think perhaps they might do the same if you made this phone call?! Duh.

Overall, because the film is so earnestly stupid, it holds a near and dear place in the heart of every bad film fan--you know, the sort of people who enjoy laughing at horrible films as an exercise in self-torture. If you aren't the sort of person who likes to do this, then my advice is to steer clear!!

Never let it be said that Ed Wood was afraid to tackle some burning social issues and he does so again here with his usual skill. The Violent Years talks about female delinquency as wealthy, but bored Jean Moorhead gathers around her some followers and they form a girl gang. These chicks are out for action and with them being masked, the law thinks that it's after your typical male holdup gang as the girls start going through all the local filling stations.

But these brazen harlots don't stop there. Unmasked they terrorize couples in a frequented lover's lane and tie up the women and then force men to their sexual wills. I don't know about you, but that's normally the kind of thing that is not best done under pressure at the point of a gun.

In the end Moorhead is pregnant and commits murder and the wages of sin are exacted by the long arm of the law in the person of noted character actor I. Stanford Jolley who looks like he's needing some laxative as he intones the sentence and his views on parents who do not give good supervision and values to their kids. Poor Jolley who is the only person in this cast who has a decent resume probably fired his agent after he signed him up for this.

Ed Wood, they'll never be another like you.

Ed Wood, purveyor of class and dignity with a veneer of exploitation, gives us a great story about the consequences of parental neglect, albeit wrapped in nice, tight sweaters.

The movie deals with a newspaperman's daughter (who looks about the same age as her parents) who has become a wild child because her father is too busy at work to notice that he keeps giving her the same birthday present every year. In addition, her mom's continuously on the charity circuit, so she's never around for those heart-to-heart talks that young women need. So, left to her own devices, she has a gang of other females in need of thrills who rob gas stations and rape young men.

While this tragedy is at times overly done, the point is still well made that parents need to be involved in their children's lives. Sterno says give The Violent Years some time from your life.

Incredibly dumb and utterly predictable story of a rich teen girl who, not given love by her parents, starts a girl gang. They rob gas stations, rape guys (!!!) and kill a policeman.

All the "teenagers" in this film are easily in their late 20s/early 30s, the acting is all horrible and the script has every cliche imaginable with hilarious dialogue--it comes as no surprise that it was written by the immortal Ed Wood Jr.!

Worth seeing for laughs. Best lines--"They're shooting back!" and "It ain't supposed to be like this."

The 1956 sociological study of the serious, but rarely spoken about, problem of armed robbery of gas stations perpetrated by affluent young women in tight sweaters during the mid 1950's is one that should surely receive further serious study. The footage of the "criminal attack" on the innocent young man on lovers lane by the beautiful, but depraved, bandits is one that I found highly disturbing. The expose became even more shocking as the pulchritudinous quartet were enlisted into the service of a foreign power, and during a particularly nefarious mission to overturn chairs and tables and knock over books in a classroom, they almost succeeded in doing something terrible to our flag. Also, during the latter mission, policemen, guards, and members of the evil gang were shot during a ferocious gunfight. At the end, the leader of the gang is finally sentenced to the state penitentiary where she gives birth to an out-of-wedlock baby. She dies and the baby is rightfully made to serve out the remainder of her sentence. Meanwhile, the affluent, but self-absorbed, parents of the wayward gangster are given several severe talkings to by the same judge who sentenced their daughter, and they are told to attend church more frequently in the future. This shocking expose was written by Mr. Edward D. Wood, Jr. I for one definitely intend to give a great deal of thought to the problem of bad girls in tight sweaters.

10 stars...or zero stars...? I don't know how to rate Ed Wood's anti-masterpieces. They're so bad that they go all the way around the dial and become great! Hilariously greatly bad. Not as hilariously greatly bad as Plan 9, but then what is?

Pan-10

A bit heavy handed and moralising but certainly has some feisty moments. I loved the girl gang with their big pointy bosoms and snarling expressions and guns. Holding up petrol stations for kicks and in the end wrecking schoolrooms and getting into a gunfight with the police. Actually they didn't do much more than push over the chairs and wipe the blackboard clean, even replacing the duster on the shelf afterwards. But they talked big, had those big bosoms and did seem keen on a bit more action than seemed to be promised elsewhere. Somewhere writer Ed Wood is trying to make some comment about all the juvenile delinquency being the fault of the parents, but there is a fine scene when a guy's girlfriend is made to take off her sweater (angora?) and skirt and then be bound in her shiny underwear whilst aforementioned guy is chased into the woods by the four bosom pals for some naughtiness. Our leading bad girl is removing her top in full frame as the picture fades and the young man protests.

In what is yet another bad juvenile delinquent movie from the moralistic 1950s, four "teenage" girls rob a gas station, erase a classroom chalkboard, and do other vile things. The four females are all miscast. They're too old to be teenagers. The main "girl", Paula, is 18 years old. But the role is given to an "actress" who looks more like she's in her thirties.

The film's sets are cheap looking. Dialogue is horrible. There's no subtext at all. Characters say exactly what they're thinking, which renders a production reminiscent of a high school play. Overall acting is amateurish. None of these people have any talent. They mouth the words without conviction or credibility. B&W lighting is conventional but tolerable.

With speech after speech about right and wrong, the worst element of the film is the ending, as a judge hits us over the head with a moralistic sledgehammer. He starts out by blasting a teenager: "...this thrill seeking became the one great thing in your life, piling one thrill on another until, with ever increasing intensity, you became much like the drug addict, with his continual increases of dosage ..." As the actor playing the judge continually looks down at a paper, which is probably the film's script, he slogs on: "... to kill for the love of killing, to kill for a thrill". The judge's sermon to the teenager goes on for several more minutes.

But the judge isn't through yet. Later, he gives another sermon, this time to the parents: "No child is inherently bad. He's made what he is by his upbringing and his surrounding. Adults create the world children live in". (I didn't know that! hehehehe) "And in this process, parents play the key role. When children grow up among adults who refuse to recognize anything that is fine and good or worthy of respect, it's no wonder that ..." Yawn! The film "credits" show that the infamous Ed Wood, Jr. was the scriptwriter. No wonder the script is horrible.

There are unintentionally funnier films out there than "The Violent Years". But the film still provides a good lesson for young filmmakers about what to do, and especially what not to do, when making a cheap movie.

This film is pretty steady and mediocre (you can tell Ed didn't direct it), lacking the weirdness and spastic nature of Wood's other films. But, it also happens to be the only film you'll ever see where a MAN IS RAPED BY A GANG OF GIRLS! A truly unique moment in film history.

Thoroughly entertaining for most of the time, this is the story of a bored, wealthy young woman who forms a gang with like-minded friends and has a whale of a time robbing gas stations, trashing schools and making men sexual offers they can't refuse. They are occasionally employed by Sheila, a splendid older gang moll in a tight sweater, whose appearance sadly only lasts a couple of minutes prior to her being gunned down. The plot runs from one absurdity to the next including two cop cars racing to a disturbance at a school and going in with all guns blazing, as if Bonnie and Clyde were in there. Unfortunately Mr Wood seemed to forget what the audience had paid to see, and devotes nearly a fifth of the running time to the patently phony moralizing required to justify everything else. This provides some fun in itself, with the veteran actor playing the judge clearly reading his interminable lines, while the distraught mother bemoans giving her errant daughter Paula 'a new dress instead of a caress'. In fact Paula, played by the glamorous Jean Moorhead, looks ravishing in the one-piece she wears at the pajama party, no doubt from 'Victor Most of California', who gets a credit. Pity the film was so short and the ending such a washout.

A newspaper publisher's daughter suffers from neglect by her parents.

She and her friends turn to crime by dressing up like men, holding up gas stations, raping young men at gunpoint, and having make out parties when her parents are away.

Their "fence" gets them to trash the school on request of sinister un- American clients, and they run afoul of the law, apple pie, and God himself.

Oddly, this rather boring film was the most successful of films touched by Ed Wood.

Perhaps cuz it stars a Playboy centerfold. Who knows? Some of the film seems to be shot in silent mode with only SFX and music dubbed in. It also seems way too well written to be Ed Wood. Not saying it's good, BTW.

I saw this Ed Wood written film as an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. Typical Ed Wood film, though it looks better than the other films that he not only wrote, but directed as well. This one is like a female, I Accuse My Parents, only in this one you are going to have a hard time trying to sympathize with the lead girl in this one, because while the boy in I Accuse My Parents is a dope, he is not trying to go out and intentionally hurt anyone, unlike the leader of the gang of girls in this one. The parents of this girl were not quite as negligent as his parents either as his mother was constantly getting drunk and stuff, while here their major crime is the father works a bit too much and the mother likes to do charities. Meanwhile, they shower her with gifts and money and don't question what she is doing at night. Of course a girl is going to go wild, that is what females do when they are teens. It does not matter what the parents did, even if they coddled her it would have made her rebel! Oh sorry, that was a bit of a rant, just comes from the experience of living with a sister that was crazy during her teen years I guess.

The story has a group of girls performing various crimes throughout a small town. Robbing gas stations, trashing schools, attacking couples and raping young men. Wait, what? Yes, you heard me correctly, they are very bad girls. The leader, as I have stated is basically the daughter of every well off parents. She even uses her dad to help her with her crimes as the father is the head of a newspaper and is covering the crime spree so she gets information from him that he gets from the police. They have a chance at a big score that apparently involves trashing a school by doing very minimal vandalism and this somehow leads to a shootout with the police which leads to a very long winded courtroom session that features Judge Pad Film.

As an episode of Mystery Science Theater, it is one I find very funny and one that kind of is one of the main reasons I prefer Mike Nelson as the host of the show to Joel Robinson. Do not get me wrong, I like both and it is not a huge gap or anything, it just seems I find that Mike hosted shows hit the ball out of the park more often. From the bumps which includes one of my favorite sketches of a radio station named Frank to the very funny riffs that litter the film. Joel did an Ed Wood film too, but it was not quite as good. I always feel the jokes come at you at a better pace with Mike than Joel, which is one of the reasons I lost excitement over the show's revival as Mike has nothing to do with it. I will probably give it a chance, but I just do not think the show will be as funny without him, because even when he was not the host, he was the head writer.

So, the film is not good; however, what do you expect? It is an Ed Wood film. That being said, I say Ed Wood was a much better film maker than another Mystery Science Theater regular in Coleman Francis. Ed Wood's films looked cheap had some bad acting and were generally bad all around, but they at least had tangible plots for the most part and while they looked cheap they looked like films. Coleman Francis films were all over the place and at times resembled someone just recording random things! So, a not so good film that at least had a plot going for it and a great film for the gang to riff. Now, I should go before that judge comes to my house and starts telling me about how society and parents are why Ed Wood films exist.