Prehistoric Women

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?

If you ever wondered how the human race first came up with the idea of fire and cooked dinners then this may be the movie for you. Over the course of this little adventure involving prehistoric women and dreamboat guys, both these incredibly important discoveries are made. Although it's interesting to note that these enormous human advances were evidently uncovered only after the discovery of beauty products.

Prehistoric Women is, naturally, camp nonsense of the first order. And it certainly knows it is as well. To ensure some, ah, authenticity these primitive characters only speak in a series of grunts. Events are explained to us by an ever-helpful voice-over man, who often simply describes what we can already see. And what we see includes an exciting fight between a caveman and a small cat…I mean dangerous panther, a girl-on-girl cat fight, an attack by a pterodactyl and, best of all, the fiery demise of a marauding, evil giant. This 50's exploitation flick is generally quite amusing but not really entertaining enough to be fully recommended. It's goofy enough to be quite likable though, although a better example of this kind of thing is The Wild Women of Wongo (1958).

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.

And here I thought our distant ancestors were small, stooped, hairy and naked. But now, thanks to Prehistoric Women, I know the women were long-legged, with curled hair, mini-skirts, and from a Las Vegas chorus line. Plus, the gene pool was big enough to include some shapely blondes. In fact, I'm now wishing I was born a lot sooner. Except the prehistoric men look a lot better than I do, like maybe they were recruited off Muscle Beach and had just left the barber shop. Oh well, the women aren't very cooperative anyway; that is, until the men ply them with big hunks of cooked meat. See, up until that time, the girls were eating their meat raw so no wonder they were always in a bad mood.

Along the way, we get to see how fire was discovered, how the lever was used, and how the swan dive was invented before swans. We also get to see how the full moon makes the girls go into a dancing frenzy long before the sounds of heavy metal, and how the feminist movement got a really, really early start. But what about that nasty giant who keeps growling and menacing all those beautiful prehistoric bodies. Too bad there wasn't a basketball recruiter to put all his 7' 8" under contract, that would have been a lot easier than burning down the jungle.

Anyhow, I think I enjoyed this cartoon version of prehistory, even though I don't think it matches my high school textbook. However I'm bothered by one really bad thought. After looking at all these wonderful prehistoric specimens and then comparing them with myself, I'm beginning to doubt the whole course of human evolution. You think maybe it's the cooked meat.

"Prehistoric Women" was obviously never meant to be taken seriously. It certainly doesn't seem to take *itself* seriously, which helps me overlook its dated plot, "cutesy" narrative and crypto-exploitation themes. By this I mean that this is the kind of film that leers at its scantily clad female characters even as it supposedly celebrates their spunk and grit. It's as if Ed Wood decided to make a family film for Mom and Dad to enjoy along with the kids.

But I am OK with that.

Obvious care and effort went into the sets and the special effects, at least considering the "B movie" nature of the material. The women are cute and the men are personable and virile...although I found it curious that the "hero" of the movie had less muscle mass than a 14 year old girl; that the monster who attacks the clans at the climax of the film looks like a stop-motion rubber chicken with a pteranondon crest taped on; that the men didn't figure out the part where they picked up rocks and threw them back at the women, but managed to invent fire and cooking...etc. etc.If you are looking for logic, consistency or real 'weight' in your adventure story, you won't find it here.

This was probably a lot of fun for a date movie in the local Bijou when it was released in 1950. But it's hard to imagine anyone watching "Prehistoric Women" for anything other than camp or nostalgic value these days. Still a decent effort for what it was.