उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

This film, better known by its alternate title of "Cocaine Fiends," is a good example (not a good movie, mind you; just a good example) of the ultra-cheap "exploitation" market that existed in the '30s and '40s. Independent producers like Willis Kent--who made this--specialized in sensationalistic, "taboo" subjects that the major studios, and even the minor ones, wouldn't dare to touch. Titles like "Cocaine Fiends," "Reefer Madness," "Sex Madness," "Confessions of a Vice Baron", "Escort Girls", etc., were guaranteed to draw crowds into the rural grindhouses and third-rate urban theaters for which they were designed. Since these films were outside (WAY outside) the mainstream Hollywood system, they didn't adhere to the rigid censorship that existed in America at that time, and consequently were able to tackle subjects (usually badly) and show material (usually nudity, though mostly partial) that patrons would otherwise be unable to see. I actually enjoy these films more than a lot of the "mainstream" product of the time. While MGM was churning out the bland, inoffensive Andy Hardy series, Dwain Esper was making "Reefer Madness," Willis Kent was putting out "Confessions of a Vice Baron" and J.D. Kendis was coming out with "The Vice Racket"--pictures that explored, however ineptly, a darker, seamier side of American life that most people didn't know, or didn't want to know, existed.

As for this picture, it's terrible, of course. Inept at virtually every conceivable level, it's nonetheless entertaining as an insight into the attitudes of American society of that time towards unpleasant subjects--which was, of course, to either ignore them, deny they existed or punish anyone unwise enough to bring them up. And lest anybody think that the "epidemic" of cocaine use is a recent phenomenon, they should know that this picture is itself a remake (by the same producer and director) of a 1928 film of the same name on the same subject, which shows that there was an apparently substantial problem in this country with hard drugs as far back as at least the 1920s--although you'd never know there was a problem with ANYTHING, judging by the "mainstream" films that came out of Hollywood. Alcoholism was treated as an amusing diversion, personified by the genial drunks of Arthur Housman and Jack Norton, and drug abuse (and, especially, sexual abuse) were such taboo subjects that the studios wouldn't even MENTION them in films, let alone make films about them. Although a few serious pictures in the '50s tackled some of these subjects, it wasn't until the '60s and '70s, when these problems couldn't be ignored any longer, that truly serious films about drug abuse, alcoholism and other societal afflictions began to be made.

Movies like "Cocaine Fiends" served their purpose--they made their producers money (they were shot so cheaply and quickly it was difficult NOT to make money off them) and gave the "renegade" movie audiences (as they were called at the time) a cheap thrill they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. They also had an unintended result--although somewhat exaggerated, they left an historical record of some of the problems that affected American society of the time, problems that subsequent generations would very likely have had little or no knowledge about if it wasn't for pictures like "Cocaine Fiends" and its brethren. If these films provided any public service at all, it was that.

While on the run from the police in the countryside, small time city drug seller Nick meets an innocent country girl, Jane, who he easily wins over with his easy charm and magical headache cure (which Jane is unaware is cocaine). After several dates (and several hits) Jane moves to the city with Nick in order to get married and live the city high life. However, moving into a poor home in a bad neighbourhood, Jane hits bottom when Nick moves her out of the house and her need for drugs becomes increasingly desperate. With her mother worried as to her whereabouts, Jane's brother and his girlfriend try to find her – but even for them the world of illegal drugs has an overpowering and destructive influence.

Unlike many other viewers on this site, I did not deliberately turn to this film to have ironic laughs at it but more out of interest. I had seen clips of this film played in modern documentaries (Grass for example) and easily derided and, in fairness, it is easy to do because they are dated and rather corny but just to watch it with an agenda to mock it is to do the film (and yourself) a disservice. It is easy to forget that this was one of many attempts to control drug use in the 1930's, the Government turned to movies as part of trying to educate the public. Looking at it now of course, the film is pretty extreme in its depiction of the consequences but it is not as bad as others claim – it does show the good side of drugs, the feelings that it gives you etc but the consequences for every user will not be as extreme as this film tries to portray as the norm for even an one-time casual user; like Bill Hicks said 'never robbed nobody, never shot nobody, never lost one single job. Laughed my *ss off, and went about my day' (I'm paraphrasing).

In terms of its value as a film, it is of course pretty weak. The direction is OK but the production values are low even for the period; some shots are really badly lit, the film crackles and jumps around a lot due to frequent dropped frames and the soundtrack cuts in and out quite badly. The acting is also only average; it would be easy to criticise the actors for how quickly they take their characters from clean cut down to junkies but that is not their fault – they were only doing what they were told and I did think that they did do an OK job. Let's not forget that this is not a movie – it is an educational film and even today the production values and acting within educational films is still pretty dire; the last one I was a short film on confined space entry with William Shatner – hardly a piece of art!

I do think, despite retrospectively looking at it and seeing the way it over eggs the cake, that the film is a good try. It readily acknowledges the easy appeal of the drug (like it or not, many of us have tried drugs because they were available and, consequences or not, maybe have habits we never intended to) by showing how simple and fun it is to try once or twice as a casual thing. It also acknowledges the causes rather well – citing broken families, innocence and heck, just good old fashioned youthful rebellion and reckless abandon as reasons for getting into the scene in the first place; all reasons that apply today. I'm not going overboard on praise for this film but I think it is easy to laugh at it as a naïve, dated piece and just ignore the fact that it does have some good even if it does go to extremes in every case. It would have been better to show that drugs doesn't take every user to a moral low, some just do it as a occasional bit of fun but that, for some users, it does become an addiction and can lead to disease, moral decline, abuse and death, because for some this is the reality.

Overall, this is not a good film by any stretch of the imagination, but if you only watch it to get ironic laughs while you smoke some puff then you are not giving it a chance or meeting it on its own ground – that of the mid-thirties. The production is average at best – poor lighting, a poor script, simplistic characters and a real biased spin to the story, but it does have some good in it. It does acknowledge the appeal of the drugs (it doesn't paint those who chose to do drugs as morally deficient in any way) as well as showing an awareness of the deeper causation factors. Of course it is biased and goes to extremes in every case but it is not as bad as many say it is if you try to view it objectively and not just roar 'it's so bad it's good' within 2 minutes of starting it.

Cocaine Fiends is one of the movies from the 1930's drugsploitation sub-genre. This, along with the superior Reefer Madness, simultaneously condemned and celebrated - intentionally or otherwise - the then taboo subject of drug abuse. Where Reefer Madness works as an unintentional comedy, Cocaine Fiends adopts a less overblown approach and, as a result, is liable to be much less entertaining to today's audiences. The production values are very low but the acting is OK. The story is exaggerated but there are no over-the-top scenes of drug-induced insanity. The film is best appreciated as a time capsule from the 1930s. It provides an insight into the attitudes of the time to drug use and its consequences. It does not, unfortunately, provide much in the way of laughs.

Also, the sound quality of the release I saw was was fairly horrendous. It was very hard at times working out what was being said. Ironically, this, coupled with the very flickery picture and deranged editing, produced the effect of watching the movie on drugs. But not very good drugs.

1st watched 1/27/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Wm. A. O'Connor): Actual attempt to make a good movie from a 1930's public service announcement premise is rather shocking in it's portrayal of addicts in the mob world of drugs, for it's time. Despite this, it's flaws include silly entertainment thrown in near the end, quick changes in people's characters(it's almost as if they ripped out sections of some the character's development) and a sometimes overdone emphasis of the complete moral decay of those involved in the use of dope(as they call it in the movie) to the point of forgetting their past life. The movie is ultimately about the demise of a sister and brother after initially being tricked to use a "headache powder" which is really cocaine. The mobster's, leading the way, use every kind of trick in the book to hook the person on the drug, and then they rule their lives from this point on. Again, for it's time, this movie does a pretty good job of showing the horrors without being campy(like other movies of this type) but a good try is still not quite good enough, though.

Also known as 'The Cocaine Fiends' this film is actually rather dull, and the quality of prints available for viewing now are fairly poor. The story of Jane Bradford's fall from grace after she takes a 'headache cure' isn't really that interesting, or played particularly well.

If you've seen 'Reefer Madness', which is something of a companion piece, then you've seen the better film of the two. And that should not be taken as a recommendation! The 1930s exploitation films, setting themselves out as some kind of public education, are all appalling and really have no relevance today unless they can amuse or intrigue. 'The Pace That Kills' can do neither.

In the 1930's, a rash of "youth gone wild" films hit theatres and grindhouses across the U. S. These "cautionary tales" were really no more than cheap exploitation films marketed under the guise of advisory: don't let this happen to you or your children, and watch as they act like sex-crazed maniacs! Alluring, repulsive, campy, and downright horrible in equal measure, these films tried so hard and yet failed so spectacularly to be either entertaining to its target audience or informational, riddled as they were with sub-par talent and heinous misinformation. While the granddaddy of all of these is the now-classic "Reefer Madness", a few years before that came "The Pace That Kills", marketed today under the title "Cocaine Fiends."

Jane (Lois January) is a good country girl that helps Mother out in the local cafe. When fast-talking criminal Nick (Noel Madison) hides out in her diner, Jane is swept up in his life of big city crime and cocaine peddling with her first shot of Nick's special "headache powder". He convinces her to move to the city with him, where she quickly becomes a strung-out addict with no control over her life and renames herself "Lil". Also dragged into this malestrom of mobsters, molls, and white dust is Jane's naive brother Eddie (Dean Benton), his impressionable girlfriend, and a spoiled heiress. Crime, perversion, and youth gone "wild" abound!

Obviously, the idea of wild was much different 70 years ago. The most wild acts in the film -- including cocaine use, unmarried sex, and murder -- are shown off camera or only hinted at. In fact, the main hook of the film is largely absent from most of it. We're supposed to believe that because of cocaine, all of these characters are doomed, yet the drug itself only comes up a handful of times in the course of the picture. As for the "perversion", girls show no skin and the romantic relations between the characters lack anything resembling passion or chemistry. Compare this to "Reefer Madness", where several female characters were shown in states of undress and the targeted drug played a central role in the direct downfall of several of the characters.

The script is merely mediocre, and the acting is surprisingly adept, although given the context of the film, it doesn't take much to impress. Lois January is actually quite convincing as Jane/Lil, and toward the end of the film, when she gives in to her new persona, you believe the actress' pain. Dean Benton also has a few good moments, especially during a speech where Eddie realizes that he is, indeed, a "hophead." Where the film falters is pacing, structure, plot, and direction. Which, of course, means the foundation of the entire film is shaky at best. The last act veers wildly off its already worn tracks, and while it mostly avoids the fatalistic ending of "Reefer Madness", it also makes no sense in relation to the rest of the story. A good half of the subplots of the film are never resolved or brought together, and viewers will end up feeling cheated. And to feel cheated by "Cocaine Fiends" is a low that not even the finest "headache powder" will cure. The film tries desperately to blend drama, romance, musical, action, and crime into a whole and fails to produce anything resembling any of those.

Part of this may be due to the print itself. Although billed at 68 minutes here on the IMDB, the Alpha Home Video DVD print (which bills the film as "Cocaine Fiends" in a value-priced, stand-alone DVD) is only 60 minutes, and in at least half of the scenes, the film itself skips, leaving several lines of dialogue and explanation in a bloody heap on the cutting room floor. The sound is also horrendous, and Eddie's girlfriend seemed to go by any number of names due to the appalling lack of clarity in the audio track (I heard Betty, Fanny, Sandy, and a few others). In comparison, "Reefer Madness"'s print is in much better shape.

Although the film does have a few redeeming moments, and it's great for a laugh or for sampling into your latest electronica masterpiece, it's a pale shadow of "Reefer Madness", a standard by which it has no choice but to be judged against. Better to skip this one and go to the wild abandon to end all wild abandons. At least for 1930's youth. 3 out of 10.

This was the first of those 1930s drug-scare exploitation movie I ever saw. I hadn't even seen Reefer Madness. I just knew a little about the genre and figured this would be an amusing little romp.

Well, it wasn't exactly. At points it was funny, but mostly it was boring and slow. It did provide a fairly candid view of every day American life in the thirties. Since the makers of this film clearly didn't have the finances that MGM or Universal lavished on their pictures, there aren't any striking Art Deco sets of Adrian gowns. Speaking of which, the set's are some of the most stark and unconvincing pieces of dressing ever to go before a movie camera. And, since the filmmakers probably didn't even have the kind of money that Continental or Majestic spent, you have to wonder if this movie wasn't shot the way Little Shop of Horrors was. I think of that roadhouse set and wonder "What lost and forgotten B movie was that really built for?"

A note of interest: Do you know that scene in Wizard of Oz where everybody's getting sproused up and some attractive supporting actress sings "We can make a dimpled smile out of a frown"? Well, that chick is the star of The Pace That Kills! Her name is Lois January and she's not a bad actress either.

... and I think people are too quick to look at a camp classic like "Reefer Madness" that shows people smoking one joint and becoming, simultaneously, great piano players, sex fiends, and trigger happy, all while maniacally laughing and think that this film is like that one. You'd be wrong.

Alternatively titled "Cocaine Fiends", this is pretty realistic in showing the effects of cocaine on people and how the addiction is slow and subtle, creeping up on you until you are hooked. The bad guy is Nick, who, on the run from the police, ends up in a diner and gives the girl running it some "headache powders" for her headaches. He woos her with promises of marriage, and gets her to come to the big city with him. Today this all looks pretty obvious, but pre WWII, most people lived in rural environments and trusted one another. Needless to say, the girl gets none of her promises kept once she gets to the city, and is so addicted to cocaine she simply just can't leave.

In the meantime her brother is looking for her after she basically disappears with no letters back home, but he runs into a partying crowd and ends up addicted too.

There are the cheap rented rooms, women being driven to the oldest profession to survive, the flop houses where addicts get their fix and then recover, implied kidnapping and forced prostitution, and strangely enough a rich girl who keeps turning up in scenes who winds up having to do with a bigger story - the search for a "Mister Big" who is directing Nick and head of the drug and prostitution rackets. The story unwinds in an interesting and even pretty well acted way given I had never heard of any of the players. It must have been pretty hard dodging the censors and yet having a realistic story. Maybe that's why a rather contrived happy ending is tacked on to the end, although it seems out of place in the midst of all of the tragedy.

I'd recommend it. Just realize that I don't know of any good quality copies in circulation and the film "skips" so at times pieces of conversation are lost.

This is yet another horrible exploitation film from the late 1930s--a period chock full of low-budget stinkers about sex and drugs (such as REEFER MADNESS, MARIJUANA and SEX MADNESS). So why did they make so many horrid films like this? Well, the producers SAID it was to inform parents about certain social problems, but more often than not the films were intended to skirt past the new and rigid Production Code that banned "inappropriate material" in films, and if the material were "educational", then it might slip past the censors in many states. In the guise of education, nudity, incest, drug abuse and many other taboos were addressed in film--and usually in the tackiest and silliest manner.

While THE PACE THAT KILLS (aka, "Cocaine Fiends") is not as bad an exaggeration as the many marijuana films (that actually stated or implied that pot was WORSE than heroin, cocaine and pills), the ridiculousness of the plot will no doubt make modern audiences chuckle. So, the film makers were able to take a serious issue that needed to be addressed and made it all seem comically stupid--way to go, guys!

The film begins with a nice girl being tricked into using cocaine by an evil pusher. She has a headache and he tells her to inhale this "new headache medicine". So, like a total idiot, she does without question and becomes hooked. Later, after this nice girl disappears into the dreaded "big city", her brother goes looking for her--only to also become hooked when another ne'er do well offers him a new "headache powder"! Apparently stupidity DOES run in families. Now the depths to which they fell--losing everything due to the addiction wasn't terribly overdone. But, how they got there and the preachiness of the plot no doubt made kids of the day often WANT to do drugs because the message was so obviously phony and silly.

Horrid writing, acting, direction and editing--this film manages to fail on every level except one--it is quite funny. Of course, with a total budget of $39.50, what can you expect from this film?

I wish this movie rose to the level of entertaining camp. But it doesn't. Instead, it's simply a bad low-budget film with few redeeming qualities. I take "camp" to mean that a scene(s) is laughably overdone because of either acting, scripting, or staging. Here the narcotic scenes are not ludicrously overdone like those in the notorious Reefer Madness. Rather, the dope (cocaine, and apparently opium) either puts a smile on the user's face or puts him into a dreamy haze-- not exactly the burlesque of that 1936 classic.

To me, the only scenes that approach camp are the two ridiculous singing acts, especially the singing waiter whose weird eye-rolling is priceless. Also, there's little titillation of the sort that characterizes most 30's exploitation films-- no nude, semi-nude or even seduction scenes. As usual for these films, the city is presented as a corruptive influence on small town innocents who are preyed upon by ruthless city-slickers. Then too, there's the notorious double standard in play. Note how the girls "can't go home again" after being corrupted, but Eddie can go once he kicks the habit. There are aspects of the typical exploitation flick, but the result looks more like an artless attempt to warn youth away from drugs of any sort. The trouble is that both the story- line and the cost-cutting are much too obvious.

Drug dealer on the run from the law meets an innocent young girl (Lois January) and her brother, and turns them into "cocaine fiends." The Alpha Video version has a poor video transfer, with the opening credits not even appearing on the screen completely. You can also tell it was poorly edited, as it does not smoothly transition from one scene to the next.

I love the subliminal ad for Lipton's Tea. We do not endorse cocaine, but delicious tea is just fine. This film is also a remake of a 1928 film. I have a hard time believing the older film is worse, but it must be.

WOWSERS! You will to snort some cocaine to stay wake to watch this bland, very talky film. Your other choices: go to sleep, find another movie that better than this (most any other film will do) or find something else to do. This is just a terrible film - not because it's anti-drugs, but because it's just a boring story.

She has a headache, he gives her some of his "headache medicine", her head feels better and not long after that she is hooked on the cocaine and the man that gave it to her. Soon her brother starts getting hooked on it. Ya know, the usual stuff we see in these types of film but this film must the the lamest on the subject.

Do yourself a favor, find another film or use this one to fall asleep by... you aren't missing anything.

1/10

Small town girl Jane Bradford falls for Nick, a guy from the big city who offers her the opportunity to get away from her small town life. He also offers her "headache powder", she not knowing that it's cocaine and that Nick is a drug pusher.

By the time they get to the city, she's hooked on her new medicine. Jane's brother, Eddie, goes to the city to look for his sister, who has not kept in touch with her family. Eddie gets a job as a carhop at a drive-in and is befriended by a drive-in's waitress named Fanny. Fanny is one of Nick's customers, and Fanny soon gets Eddie hooked on the headache powder.

Due to this vice, Eddie and Fanny's life soon goes downhill. They're both fired from their jobs and are unable to find other work in their drugged out state. On the periphery of both Eddie and Jane's life is Dorothy Farley, a customer at the drive-in. Dorothy, dating Dan, comes from a wealthy family and she throws her money around easily. She's willing to assist financially those in need....

If you've seen any of the plethora of morality plays made in the 30s and 40s, you know the drill. What is never discussed about these movies is when people saw hem in the theater did they laff or take them seriously?

Unfortunately all the prints of these flicks are 3rd and 4th generation dupes so of very poor quality. Probably why Reefer Madness was the one to become the cult favorite -- it's in the best condition. Truth is, all these films are the same.

If you've seen "Reefer Madness", you can skip "Cocaine Fiends/Pace That Kills". The same overblown scare tactics used in "Reefer Madness" are tried again here, but to limited success. At least "Madness" showed what marijuana looked like; cocaine is mentioned and abused but never actually shown. The same old plot of "good kids turned bad by dope" is re-hashed, but not as directly as in other films, so it gets talky when it shouldn't. The first taste of a drug apparently turns you into a monstrous irresponsible waste of humanity, or a "hop head" as the main character laments. Besides exaggerating consequences to the nth degree, "Fiends" has editing that makes you seasick. Characters simply vanish between film splices and cars appear out of nowhere. It's not funny, it's annoying. Although I'm not in favor of drug use at all, it's fun to see something subvert straightlaced black-and-white America. Anarchists will love this movie, but everyone else will find it rather dull.

Small-town girl Jane (Lois January) is introduced to "headache powder" i.e. Cocaine by Nick (Noel Madison), a peddler on the run. She ends up a bitter, run-down gangsters' moll, re-christened Lil. The story shows what happens as Janes' brother Eddie (Dean Benton) and his co-worker Fanny (Sheila Bromley) also get led down the road to ruin as they also partake in drugs.

A sound remake of an earlier silent, this little film is better known under its alternate title "The Cocaine Fiends". It's not nearly as infamous as "Reefer Madness", but as this kind of exploitation-melodrama-drug scare picture goes, it makes for suitably engrossing, sordid sleaze. The interesting thing, of course, is that because films like this were so low-budget, and done well outside the Hollywood system, they were able to tackle taboo subjects such as this - while also being free to be as racy as possible. (The camera certainly loves to ogle the figures on some of the attractive young ladies; we even see the silhouette of one gal as she undresses behind a curtain.)

While it couldn't really be argued that films like "The Pace That Kills" are really much good, they carved out their own little niche in exploitation cinema, and *can* serve as amusing reminders of this period in B movie history. In this case, the acting is notably sincere if not that slick. The pacing is definitely off, as too much time towards the end is devoted to the novelty acts at the "Dead Rat" nightclub, but the film *does* regain its momentum for a priceless finish.

Six out of 10.

Cocaine Fiends, The (1935)

BOMB (out of 4)

A sweet, innocent young girl gets involved with a drug dealer who starts giving her "headache medicine" but what she doesn't know is that it's really cocaine. Here's yet another anti-drug film made to try and keep people off drugs but after sitting through a film like this you'll be frantically searching for your town's local drug dealer just so you can get high and hopefully kill some brain cells that will wipe out any memory of this film. You go into films like this expecting them to be bad and you expect some unintentional laughs but I really didn't find any of those here. The movie is incredibly bad from start to finish but what kills it from being entertaining on a bad level is that it appears the director tries to turn this horrid screenplay into something serious. Most films like these contain outrageous scenes meant to get past the production code but this one here doesn't feature any such scenes. We hear about how great this girl was and then we see her fall apart. Boring.

THE PACE THAT KILLS (aka: COCAINE FIENDS) is about Eddie, and his hopeless search for his "drugged out" sister, Jane, who fell in with a "rough crowd" after being introduced to a useless "powder peddler" named Nick.

Along the way, poor Eddie himself is given a dose of the devil drug by one of Satan's-helpers-in-human-form. A girl, no less! Eddie tumbles deep into the bowels of depravity.

Oh! If only these 30 year old kids had steered clear of this nefarious nose powder!

Now, there may be no hope at all. Watch and shudder!

EXTRA POINTS FOR: Spotting the rodent wallpaper at the Dead Rat Cafe...