Fleshpot on 42nd Street

I thought this was an entertaining grindhouse relic. It was more of a drama than anything, but the characters made it watchable. The lead actress seems ruthless at first, but eventually shows she can gain our sympathy--she is generous to her friends, and just wants a better life. Her transgender friend gets all the best lines. The men are all lumps of crud (and terrible actors)--except Bob. It's not the most complicated story--it's more of a character piece, but I was never bored by it. I don't know if there are different versions out there, but the print I saw was pretty grainy. Also, some of the camera work could make you motion sick the way it shakes around. But I will recommend it for anyone who can overlook technical flaws to find a trashy gem set in 70's New York.

Although the film was released in 1973 it plays more like a film that was released much earlier in the 1950's and feels more like you are watching a documentary than a soft core dramatic film. The main star of the film is a prostitute named Dusty Cole (played by Laura Cannon) who we witness having sex with a variety of men from different economic classes and their varying wants. Dusty Cole comes off as a poor man's version of the much more main stream 1990 Pretty Woman starring Julia Roberts.

There certainly is no romance involved in Fleshpot on 42nd Street but a lot of grit, a platonic relationship with a transvestite named Cherry Lane (Neil Flanagan) and the lesson that money talks and bull crap walks.

I give this low budget film high marks for making the most with so little to work with and it comes off as a reality film with the hard knocks of a young prostitute's life. I give it a 7 out of 10 IMDB rating. Not so much for its cinema quality (which it lacks) but more for it's true grittiness.

I sat down to watch this expecting the worst. However, I found it quite surprising. Looking at those living on the fringes of society, director and writer Andy Milligan (who had a rather tragic life) wrote decent dialogue, and utilized actors from New York's off Broadway scene, so the performances are actually not bad (including, of all people, Harry Reems). Shooting with a 16 mm camera and utilizing extreme close ups, it's obvious Milligan actually had some talent. One wonders what he might have done in the main stream.

A homeless young woman hops from bed to bed and friend's apartment to friend's apartment trying to find herself and gets into all sorts of trouble with a variety of shady characters until she meets a guy she really falls for.

Sometimes funny, sometimes shocking, and always unpredictable, Fleshpot on 42nd Street goes further than just about any other low budget exploitation cheapie from the era and includes real sex. Oddly enough, the sex scenes don't deter from the film or stop the film cold and only enhance it.

Knowing Andy Milligan's reputation, and judging from the video box cover, I really wasn't expecting much from this film. To tell the truth, I wasn't expecting ANYTHING from it. I rented it because I had never seen a Milligan movie and wanted to see if he was as lousy a filmmaker as his reputation says he is. Well, judging by this film, he isn't.

That's not to say that it's any kind of masterpiece, or even particularly good, or even particularly competent. Although the IMDb technical specs for this film say it was shot in 35mm, it has the grainy, poor color quality and lousy sound of 16mm, which is what it really appears to be. The acting is nothing special but not completely incompetent. Neil Flannagan as a drag queen hooker is sort of charming in a pathetic way, and has a scene where he gets into an argument in a bar that is actually pretty funny. Diana Lewis as the young girl who's the centerpiece of this isn't particularly impressive, but she gets by. Harry Reems tries too hard to be the boy next door type and doesn't really pull it off, but he's at least watchable. Amazingly for a Milligan film there's actually a coherent story line about the kinds of people who inhabited the seamy area of Manhattan known as Times Square way back before Disney bought it up and sterilized it, and Milligan actually does a pretty good job of conveying the seediness, depravity, debauchery and general scuzziness that typified the area at that time. What really sets this movie apart from others of its type that I've seen, however, is the way it treats its characters. It's not judgmental of them at all, and doesn't romanticize them as poor pathetic victims or portray them as vicious, depraved victimizers. It just shows them as people who don't have a whole lot going for them and try to get by as best they can with what they've got, doing whatever it is they have to do to make it through to the next day. In other words, they're not much different from anyone else. It took me a while to realize what he was saying with this movie because of the film's technical and narrative shortcomings--for all the good intentions he seems to have brought to this project, Milligan is still a terrible director--but the area and the subject matter were apparently close to his heart, and if Andy Milligan can be said to have made a "personal" film, this is probably it. It's worth a look to see what Times Square was really like back in the early '70s, and the film itself is actually, on the whole, pretty interesting. Check it out.