The Undertaker and His Pals

This very well may be the first slasher film ever made, and the really weird thing, it is also the first parody of a slasher film ever made.

Therein lies a real social-historical problem: how can the film effectively creating the genre at the same time parody the genre, which doesn't come into existence until the film is released? First, a qualification: What makes a slasher film is extremely graphic gratuitous violence against helpless women, using a long knife as preferred weapon.

Arguably, the real "first" of the genre may have been "Psycho"; but "Psycho" was an exceptional film, and stands out from most of the rest of the genre. And it's in black & white, while a true slasher film requires blood-glaring color (which "Undertaker" has, and remarkably well-kept for its age). I prefer to think of "Psycho" as a precursor.

But "Undertaker" is, first of all, nothing special as a film. (It's just low-budget drive-in fodder, intended to be ignored by the teen-agers necking in the back seat.) Secondly, it takes sadistic-voyeur pleasure in showing us the violence and the blood. Finally, it shows self-consciousness concerning the sadistic-voyeurism, meaning that it is intended to appeal to the very worst instincts in its target audience.

And that makes it pure genre film - well, almost.

As I said, it is also a parody of this genre - in the most outrageous way. The sales pitch the undertaker offers potential customers is genuinely amusing, and the killers repeatedly debunk themselves as silly mad-scientist types that only happen to run a failing diner. What's going on here? There can be only one answer, logically: the film-makers here are actually parodying another genre film.

Perhaps "Psycho" can help us out here, after all. It must be remembered that a major influence on Hitchcock's's film was the motel sequence in Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil". That episode was itself influenced by the '50s "JD" (juvenile delinquent) films that frequently had middle-class suburban families found suddenly in the grip of a punk or a gang of young punks (the most famous being Brando's "The Wild One"). And the JD film was itself a clear off-shoot from the standard B-movie crime-thriller of the early '50s, which is simply a sub-genre of the "police procedural" (e.g., "Dragnet").

So, what "Undertaker" is really spoofing here is the police procedural.

So the indirect progenitor of the slasher film is - Jack Webb's "Dragnet". That's a little unsettling, but true.

At any rate, I'm not a big fan of slasher films, and I only watched this film a second time because it is, so clearly, an historical oddity. And it's real weird that directors like Welles and Webb (who have nothing else in common but this) should, in trying to explore the social significance of socio-pathic crime, point the way for audiences to enjoy such violence voyeuristically in the slasher film. That's cause for reflection.

Which makes "Undertaker", if only for history's sake, a very, very weird little film.

Not recommended for enjoyment, but a must-see for film-history buffs.

Nicely daft horror comedy with a nice dose of gore, straight from the middle of the sixties! Three motorcyclists seemingly select a victim at random, go to her house and stab her with knives before removing her legs. The victim's parents are then fleeced for cash by the local undertaker, but what connection does he have to the killings? And who are the two sinister guys at the local diner who have taken an interest in PI Harry Glass's assistant? It's up to Harry to get to the bottom of things, although in the end he doesn't do too much.

Full of gore (Hatchets through heads, a Fulci style chain whipping way before Don't Torture a Duckling, an acid bath)and bad humour (the 'meals' served at the diner, the Benny Hill style slapstick), plus buxom sixties babes, the Undertaker and His Pals is a prime slice of cheese served up with sly wink and is a treat for bad movie fans. The end credits say it all man.

Oh, some people will think it stinks, but for my money, this is moviemaking! Short running time, graphic violence, bad puns and swinging sixties music all combined to make one of the most enjoyable features I've ever seen. No joke!! The DVD is the best it's ever looked except for probably it's initial release. I highly recommend it, especially for younger teenage horror lovers. Loads of fun.

There are so many posts about how horrible of a film this is, but honestly I'd rather watch this cheese-fest than any horror movie coming out today. Yeah, the jokes in this film are stupid. Even the violence is stupid. It's cheap! And that's what I liked about it. Look at the tag line! B Movies from the 1960's should not be taken too seriously and anyone who comments on how terrible this film is obviously did. If you watch this movie for scares, you're not going to get them. If you watch this movie as a fan of 1960's exploitation/horror, you'll probably enjoy it. Just pop it in with a smile on your face and you'll enjoy this so-called "hour of wasted time and life." LOL. Come on people, lighten up!

What a weird little treat this one is. The cinematography is interesting at times. It starts off on a visually interesting note and held my interest the whole time. The acting is fine. There are some jokes and the thing moves along very fast, too fast to get bored.

Sure it's not Hitchcock, but for low-budget fun, this one makes the grade. The special effects are sometimes a little weak, but all in all they made a very consistent effort in this picture. Give me this over Con Air any day.

I did not at all regret seeing this, and that is pretty high praise as far as I'm concerned. It's a fun relic from 1967, if you like movies and have a sense of humor and the absurd, you'll probably see this as time well spent.