Facce senza Dio

First there are no Hell's Angels as in mentioned in the main summery, the MC is the Skulls for you trivia lovers. As is so often the case in many of these summaries their weakness makes me wonder if they actually watched the movie. The movie does have a common plot for the genre, the beat music and slang of the Sixties fills the movie. The leader, John Cassavetes, is one of the not really bad guys, just a guy trying to find his way. So his performance is above what one often sees in these types of movies. Over another normal 60s biker "gang" stereotypes in plot but without the why so common death ending so in so many of films. At least more of a more positive ending

It's Roger Corman's follow-up to his successful The Wild Angels. Cody (John Cassavetes) leads what's left of his motorcycle gang called the Skulls. They are continuously on the run from The Man. Cody recounts the story of Butch Cassidy's hideout, the Hole-in-the-Wall, and vows to find their own secret place.

Cassavetes should get a bit more gruffy to be a biker. He's too clean. I know that he never has facial hair but this role needs some. Maybe he could have a few day's growth. I am surprised with the humor and it's somewhat too broad. I like the rough general tone of this gang but the almost-rape scene does get very creepy. I don't mind going negative on the bikers as long as the movie doesn't keep trying to push the discrimination narrative. Despite the problematic rooting interest, I would like going apocalyptic on the town. If only they actually did it. The budget would have a problem burning down a town.

An exiled band of Hell's Angels strike a bargain with the Sheriff of a local town, let them stay and the town is safe. But a local girl strays into their lair and sparks off a full scale Angel war.

Nothing like a good old Arkoff-Nicholson-Corman production featuring bikers who are sick of "the Man" and want to fight, camp under the stars, and get crazy. Not a bad thing, but not really much in the way of originality here, either. I mean, after all, this was cashing in on their previous film, "Wild Angels", which was cashing in on the Hell's Angels' notoriety (and apparently the AIP guys ran into legal trouble for trying to put the Angels name in the movies... but who knows?) Now, besides the three guys mentioned above, we must mention the director: Daniel Haller. Probably not as well known as those guys, but he was the set designer for the AIP Poe films, so he was one of the family.

I guess the film grossed $4 million, which is not bad for a low-budget flick with no big names -- with all due respect to John Cassavetes (who horror fans know from "Rosemary's Baby") and Mimsy Farmer (who worked with Italian horror masters Argento, Fulci and Deodato).

After the 1966 biker movie "The Wild Angels" became a box office smash, American-International Pictures over the next few years made and released a number of other biker movies, "Devil's Angels" being one of the first. While the movie definitely was profitable, the profit was much less so than what "The Wild Angels" grossed. Watching the movie, it's pretty easy to see why drive-in audiences weren't as enthusiastic. There is pretty much no plot or character development in the first half of the movie - it's just one vignette after another. The second half of the movie has a little story and fleshes out its characters slightly, but not too much more. Also disappointing is that the movie is nowhere as sleazy and explicit as some other biker movies of the time (it got a PG rating); it's quite tame even by 1967 standards. The best I can say for the movie is that there is some good widescreen photography and composition.

This is not a great movie, and it never was. But today, the period foolishness in telling the story of poor, misunderstood counterculture bikers is a hoot! The bikers flaunt their bad-boys image and behavior, but then bemoan the harsh treatment they get from the "citizens" they despise. They--and this film--want it both ways. If this was a new film, I would be more critical of it, but as it is, it's a wonderful time capsule of '60s film-making and ideology. The acting and dialog continually swing from wooden and contrived to endearing and dramatically believable. Cassavetes was truly a talented actor, and this otherwise low-grade movie proves it. I am much more fond his gang leader character than the script or production warrant.