Stanley

I'll say this, 'Stanley' makes no bones about the clear influence it takes from 1971's 'Willard' - different animal, much the same premise. Though decidedly heavy-handed, I appreciate how this lays out all the iniquities for which human protagonist Tim and reptilian protagonist Stanley will seek vengeance. "Themes" isn't quite the right word, but in addition to environmentalism and the destruction of and broad disregard for wildlife, the feature speaks more indirectly to racism, sexism, exploitation, and the various other evils that humans visit upon one another, including old-fashioned capitalist greed. On the other hand, while the dialogue, scene writing, and acting lay it on rather thick, the plot is rather lackadaisical about going anywhere. I suppose that's nothing unusual or unexpected when it comes to second- or third-rate genre flicks, but still this somewhat confounds for how meagerly it proceeds. Whether one wishes to call this a "horror flick" or a "thriller," neither label meaningfully applies in reality. Given the most cheeky and over the top bits one could also just say it's a "comedy" and be done with it, but that label never particularly bears fruit, either.

Don't get me wrong, the picture can boast some splendid, delightful ideas one way or another. Writer Gary Crutcher gives us a complete narrative, and at least in concept the rest of the screenplay is fine. Though unquestionably overwrought, star Chris Robinson gives a modestly appreciable performance. Despite the very low-budget, low-grade nature of the production, I recognize the work that everyone involved turned in, including great filming locations and swell sets. A low budget doesn't excuse such weak-kneed direction, however, nor noncommittal writing, nor acting that's consistently either overcooked or underwhelming, but scarcely ever earnest. With more care this could have actually been a thriller, a horror flick, or a thriller-comedy or a horror-comedy. Instead 'Stanley just kind of "is" in the most rudimentary sense. The promise of the premise has been fulfilled, but in the least interesting way it could have been. Furthermore - especially given the credits for the movie, or the lack thereof, I don't think there were any specific special effects created, which can only mean that there was some abject animal cruelty employed to capture a few select shots. And there's no excuse for that, either.

I don't think this is altogether rotten. All the potential is right there for the taking, and the last twenty minutes are probably the strongest part of all. Yet as both director and producer William Grefé goes about the project in pretty much all the wrong ways, and this is not nearly the film that it might have been. Whether it was for lack of skill or lack of will, no lack of bills can account for the deficiencies to present. I had high hopes when I sat to watch, but let's be honest, I should have known better. Leave this for those who are very curious or very bored on a lazy day; otherwise, there's no real need to check out 'Stanley.'

Crap! Another bad killer snake movie. Actually, this movie is pretty much just "Willard" with snakes instead of rats. Chris Robinson plays a Vietnam Vet and a Seminole Indian (neither very convincingly) whose only friends are poisonous snakes. He uses these "friends" to take revenge on greedy developer and snakeskin dealer (Alex Rocco, who appeared in "The Godfather" the same year)who was also conveniently responsible for the death of his father, and on a skanky stripper who bites the heads off of snakes as part of her act (because, of course, THAT'S a real turn-on).

There are several problems with this movie. First, it is somewhat believable that rats might have affection for humans and do their bidding, but it is far less believable that snakes would (and the character here isn't given any special psychic powers over them a la Jennifer Connelly in "Phenomenon"). Second, poisonous snakes aren't very good at attacking people. Even when confronted with a large number of poisonous snakes, all the victims would have to do is run away--it's not like snakes are going to chase you. (The most ridiculous scene has Rocco's character attacked in his swimming pool by dozens of water moccasins). The movie really goes off the rails at the end though when Robinson suddenly falls in love with and kidnaps Rocco's sexy, bare-midriffed blonde daughter. After she spurns him, he tries to get the snakes to bite her, but they refuse, so he reacts in an unintentionally hilarious "Willard"-esque fashion and finally gets his just desserts.

On the plus side this movie was directed by Willam Grefe who would go on to do equally ridiculous but much more entertaining movies like "Impulse" with William Shatner. It's also certainly no worse than many other killer snake movies-"Jennifer, "Rattlers" , "Spasms", "Venom", or more recent CGI crap like "Boa", "Python" and "Anaconda". Maybe filmmakers should just give up on these killer snake movies.

William Grefe had a knack for turning out low budget yet effective films in the 60s and 70s. STANLEY is one of his more popular releases. The film is very dated (mainly from the guys' clothing), but worth a look. The film is at it's most creepy with scenes of real snakes crawling all over the home of the snake-man. You can imagine what it must have been like to be on the set - Grefe was probably the lone crew man. The film's weakness is in it's running time - more than an hour and forty-five minutes is much too long for this kind of drive-in/exploitation fare. The film would have been more effective if trimmed down to a 90 minute or so running time. Like one character who got bit on the ass, it hurt to sit down that long!

The topic itself, a man getting vengeance with the use of his "pets," sounds very familiar to me, especially snakes. I have seen it before but more in the horror style, not psychotronic, as here. Director William Grefe was one of my favourites in the domain of exploitation features, destined to saturday evening audiences. Actually I above spoke of Bernie Kowalski's SSSNAKE, where it was also question of a young man involved with snakes, but the scheme in the way of showing them was not exactly the same though, it was not a matter of revenge. Anyway, I love this kind of indie productions, far from Hollywood industry and those producers who snoop around, seeking every dollar spent, the paper toilet you use each time you go to the men's room. Here, you are sure there is no director's cut, or maybe a very little. We are lucky that there were batches of them during the seventies. And as I said fifteen years ago on Imdb about another Grefe's film: JAWS OF DEATH, the director uses here the same scheme, but snakes instead of sharks. If you prefer, remember Daniel Mann's WILLARD. The lead used rats instead of....

Stanley is a rattlesnake ,the companion of Tim ,a Native American Vietnam veteran who lives in seclusion in the Everglades where he ekes out a precarious existence .He clashes with a local petty crime lord who wants to kill as many snakes as possible in order to turn their skins into boots ,belts , purses -anything in short that will turn a quick profit .Stanley's brood of baby rattlers are slaughtered and Tim strikes back by using the snake as his instrument of revenge even going so far as to kidnap his rival's teenage daughter an event which precipitates a bloody and fiery climax This is dreadful on every level and in every department -the acting is wooden ,the script simplistic and the pace funereal Not recommendable even to 70's monster movie completists or the most undemanding of spectators.