Pets

Pets (1973)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Bonnie (Candice Rialson) ran away from home but her older brother is forcing her back. When Bonnie gets her chance she escapes from him and heads back out on her own where life takes her in a few different directions and with a few different strange people.

PETS is a film that tells you a little of what to expect just by looking at its poster. The poster with a scantly clad lady is clearly telling people that they're walking into a sexploitation film but if you're expecting all T&A and nothing else then you might be disappointed because PETS actually tries to be a character study and I think for the most part it works well.

There's no doubt that the greatest thing about the picture is the performance of Rialson. Is she in the same league as Meryl Streep? Of course not but then again this type of film isn't asking for that type of performance. I thought the actress was very believable in the part and there's no question that she was very easy on the eyes and this here made the sexploitation works flawlessly. Her character has to act with several others and there's no doubt that Rialson just controls the film throughout.

There's no doubt that the film does have some flaws including a few characters that aren't all that interesting but at the same time the movie delivers a rather interesting look at a runaway and the various bad situations she finds herself in. Is PETS a masterpiece? No but it's at least entertaining and worth watching.

The lead character does seem to always end up as somebodies pet. First it's a African American Hooker, then a Lesbian painter, then, finally, Ed Bishop as art gallery owner. There are also various little furry friends the various characters own. So that's the thread that runs through this.

It is not a white chick & black chick ride through the night kind of sleazy buddy film that the DVD version seems to be sold as.

It is not particularly well made, the DVD source print is among the worst you'll see (though still worth watching if). It's not amateur time but it's pretty rough around most edges production. The paintings featured are well done and the topless portrait of Candace would be a great collectors item--where oh where is that now? It's better produced than other 70's drive in stuff but very limited in what it can afford to do. Climax which potentially could involve a live tiger ends very quickly for example.

The music is a "Everybodies talking' at me" attempt at ballads and then no score at all. Which hurt as the movie seems to lose energy by the end. In fact the first nearly 40 minutes consists of about 4 scenes one of which lasts at least 15 minutes. So it's not fast paced exploitation, this is fairly low budget affair, don't expect any car crashes.

You can expect some nudity and you'll get it and be pretty happy with what you get. Star Candace does well in the part and certainly willing to go all out when required. Ed Bishop is fun but doesn't really get to cut loose as much as you might hope during the last section of the film.

Not much prolonged violence in this film and it has less and less exploitation as it goes along. Again it's worth a watch if you're in the mood, just know what it is and isn't. The film does take its' time with story, the characters aren't very deep. You think that's a flaw? Well it wouldn't be except that's sort of what you're left with in this film after awhile. It may well have some aspirations to be sort of a "Sleazy Rider" only all of it takes place within about 30 minutes drive of Malibu and Santa Monica. A few nice views of some old rotting piers that are now gone from the coast line. Some 70s music score would have helped sounds like they had to buy canned music and again not very much music other than the songs, which are kind of fun in a bad way. Mostly this film is for fans of Candace or may help create new fans of hers. Certainly this works better than the wretched CHATTER BOX. You can see why she stopped making movies with titles like that in her resume. But this is early on and she seems ready to be a cool 70's chick in exploitation movies which sort of did and sort of didn't happen for her.

A cool 70's runaway flick. Lots of trampy goings on and sleazy softcore sex. Interesting angle at the end with the "Collector" character but this film ultimately is nothing to get too excited about.

While "Pets" might be shelved among other "erotic thrillers", it's much too relaxed for that genre, and sexuality is generally portrayed as fun, not dangerous. Dangerous, here, is linked with possessiveness, and so the movie is firmly grounded in the 60s with their non-possessive ways. Also very 60ish - the meandering plot, with our "heroine" Bonnie (nice play) drifting through various more or less strange episodes and always getting some satisfaction out of it. The small scale of the production is clearly visible (sometimes painfully) and takes away some enjoyment, but overall Pets is a fun romp with very few boring moments and some real erotic tension without much sleaze.

Young runaway, Bonnie (Candice Rialson), gets herself into pickle after pickle for a little over 90 minutes and you do ask yourself "what's the point of this all again?" Still, it's incredibly entertaining to watch Bonnie get involved with a not-so-friendly hustler who uses a squirt gun to terrorize men, a possessive lesbian artist who wants Bonnie all to herself, a random drifter, and, finally, a perverted art collector who wants to keep Bonnie as one of his pets.

The story is basically just a series of vignettes and it's as if the writers wrote one of them, came back to the story a few years later, wrote another, and so on and so forth. They feel oddly disconnected and our protagonist never really does much of anything besides thumb rides and accept too good to be true offers from strangers. I'm assuming there's something to be said about female liberation during the film's climax, but who knows?

Pets' messaging might be weird, but it's never less than entertaining and more than worth your time.