Donne pantere

This cinecolour gem tells the tale of a prehistoric tribe where some of the women fled with some the female children to escape to tyranny of the males. However, as the young girls get older the mating instinct takes over. The women kidnap and enslave some males for mates. Along the way the male lead invents fire (and cooking), battles a giant bird that resembles a rubber chicken, and a giant played by real life circus giant Johann Petursson. The whole picture is told by a narrator who informs us of such things as "the swan dive was invented before the swan."

I doubt if anyone connected with making this minor little picture was taking any of this seriously, unlike the similar 1967 film of the same title made by Hammer. And you shouldn't take this film seriously either. Some people have expressed an almost psychotic dislike towards this minor, trivial little film, but I can't see what there is to get angry about. PREHISTORIC WOMEN is entertainingly ludicrous, lively, good natured harmless fluff. If you watched this film expecting an serious anthropology lesson, thats your fault for being so naive. Some self-anointed enlightened types say its sexist. So what! What does that word really mean? I'm going to be the first admit I happen to like seeing sexy Laurrette Luez running around in skimpy outfit. Got a problem with that?

I will be honest.The only reason I bought this DVD was to see more (in every sense of the word) of Laurette Luez.She first caught my attention in the 1950 film "D.O.A." when I wished she could have had a more substantial part.In "D.O.A". I was struck by Laurette's exotic looks and when I looked up her biography on IMDb.com, it did not surprise me that she was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.I have a serious weakness for beautiful 1940s film actresses with raven black hair.I have every film Jennifer Jones ever made as well as examples of Ava Gardner, Margaret Lockwood, Patricia Medina and Vivien Leigh; not that I am putting Laurette Luez on a par with those film goddesses but as said by a reviewer above she meets my need for agreeable "eye candy".

During the film I wondered what Professor Leakey (the famous British anthropologist whose family live in South Africa) would have made or said of the plot!The ladies looked like they had just come out of a Hollywood beauty salon, which indeed they had i.e. the film studio's make-up dept.Tigers are only found in India.Where were the 9 foot giant's mother & father, did they have any other giant children?The giant (I bet he was a cute baby), reminded me of a latter day Richard (Jaws) Kiel.The pterodactyl was extinct by the time man evolved onto this planet.Unfortunately film companies/producers have a stubborn obsession with evolution and insist man must do battle with prehistoric monsters as it looks good on film and is what audiences want.That's the problem with playing chess like I do, it makes you think too logically! But of course the real reason people (mainly heterosexual men) would watch films like these is to see scantily clad beautiful stone age women ministering to the capricious urges of their stone age men folk and I am including myself in that category.There was some S&M scenes in "Prehistoric Women" which will appeal to men of that disposition and persuasion.Again the logical side of my brain kicked in, with all that stone age muscle around, why did the men meekly submit themselves to be held captive by those glamorous primitive women?.Could it be that they wanted to be held by them as their prisoners? Films like this trigger prehistoric urges in all of us.I noticed when I started to pen my review that IMDb.com only rated it 2.7/10.That seemed a little harsh for the entertainment factor alone, so I scored it 4/10.

I can't believe nobody's seen this movie. Not even 5 votes registered. This is a real cult classic, guys. Dinosaurs, women running around in fur bikinis, catfights; it has it all. Not a whole lot of talent, mind you, but that's not what we're looking for in exploitation, is it? The plot? Who cares. It's simple enough to follow with the sound off. Just sit back, put some heavy tunes on, and enjoy the action.

In the standard prehistoric tribal environment, the women are rightfully subjugated. One rebellious woman has a problem with authority figures and opts to correct that with a rock to the male cranium.

Realizing that this might provoke the other males, she heads for the woods or jungle with a handful of women and girls. Of courses being a moral film in the time fo censorship the females must be punished so, they are dragged off by a giant; thus, they leave a hand full of girls to be brought up without males by a wise old woman.

We come to the opening scene where the women not knowing what they are missing have to dance to exhaustion (we get exhausted watching).

Soon after being told that men can be useful for propagating, they set out to subdue some feeble men for this nefarious purpose.

In the process, we see the invention of fire and its consequences.

I recommend that this film should not fall into the hands of women.

By junking at least twenty minutes of extraneous footage (including two totally boring dance sequences that are spun out to excruciating length), this little effort would make a passable feature for those of us who enjoy leg shows (if nothing else). It's true the fights with the giant and the pterodactyl are mildly effective, but the story, acting and production values are so lacking in quality that connoisseurs will find the whole movie a chore to sit through.

It's startling to find one of Paramount's top photographers, Lionel Lindon (later to win numerous awards for Around the World in 80 Days), working on this cheap-jack Poverty Row independent—and contributing such below-par work at that. Yes, all the shots are in focus, but that is the responsibility of the camera operator and focus puller. The director of photography directs the lighting, and just about all of the many night scenes are so badly under-lit, you can hardly make out what's happening!