Wicked, Wicked

OK, if you've heard anything about this movie, it's that the entire thing is in split-screen. 1970 was in the period when movie gimmicks were dying; William Castle had turned to producing with "Rosemary's Baby" and given up directing, 3-D was dead, and the audience participation concept was eradicated. "Wicked Wicked" must have been a nice return to the selling gimmick. Only this time, you didn't get items as a gimmick (bloody axes, 3-D glasses, plastic coins, barf bags), the whole movie viewing experience was a gimmick. Unfortunately, the makers of the movie thought that the split-screen effects would make "Wicked Wicked" a great film. In fact, it's just the opposite.

I have always loved the idea of split-screen techniques used in movies (employed heartily by Brian dePalma for "Carrie", "Dressed to Kill", and others) and jumped at the chance of seeing this when I heard of the gimmick. Here's the final verdict: fun to watch, just don't take it seriously. The plot is flimsy (a murderer is stalking a hotel) and most of the acting horrible. But how can a movie go wrong with Tiffany Bolling in the cast? Beautiful blonde Tiffany Bolling spends half the movie in a black wig, the other with her gorgeous blond locks playing a lounge singer stalked by the killer. This woman steals the show, just like she does in "Kingdom of the Spiders" and "The Candy Snatchers". The music is atmospheric and makes for great background music, but is finally pushed to the point of head-splitting annoyance!

If you enjoy split-screen and Tiffany Bolling, watch the movie. If not, you will probably find the whole thing tedious (which most of it is) and a cheap attempt to win an audience. Doesn't work a horror film, but will definitely win a larger cult if MGM just releases this on video (likewise with "Night of the Lepus" and "Private Parts"!).

I can hardly begin to express what a disgusting, worthless piece of excrement this film is. When you consider how much talent there is in film-making, to know that a major studio (admittedly, on its last legs) funded this garbage makes you want to grab a sharp implement.

Why is it so awful? All right (deep breath):

1. The split screen. It's distracting. It adds nothing to the narrative. It isn't used to make a point (as Tarantino does in Jackie Brown). It's just there as a selling feature.

2. The performances. God help us.

3. The script. God continue to help us.

4. The story itself. Who the hell thought this would be an original idea?

5. The child abuse sequences. So appallingly exploitative, so unworthily sickening, so POINTLESS...I wanted to throw something at the TV.

6. The tacky tone. The sexual puns are puerile beyond belief. The Farrelly brothers would never have stooped this low.

7. The theme song. Still stuck in my head after about 10 years. GO AWAY!!!!

There are plenty of other reasons why this obscenity should be thrown into the Pit of Hell, but I really can't bear to go any further. Every copy of this should be consigned to fire, and everybody involved in it should be taken outside and shot, their bodies burnt, their ashes buried and the whole site concreted over.

If this diatribe persuades people to go and see it, it has failed in its mission. Don't ever employ its maker to do anything again, I implore you.

The least enjoyable bad film ever made. Can I give it a minus score, please?

Movie takes place at a huge seaside hotel in California. In it handyman Jason (Randolph Roberts) attacks and kills blonde women. He then hides the bodies so they just go missing. The hotel has a security man searching for the people and beautiful Lisa James (Tiffany Bolling) is hired to sing there. She has black hair...but decides to wear a blonde wig which has Jason after her.

This was the first (and last) film shot in "Duo Vision"--basically a split screen used in 99.9% of the film (there are a few shots in the film not using it). It actually works pretty good sometimes. You see a person on one side of the screen and see what he's thinking of on the other. Still, it's just basically a gimmick to sell the film (it didn't work). The story itself is familiar and the killings are pretty non-bloody (this has a PG rating), but the acting itself is actually not half bad and the film kept my interest. Not a camp classic by any means but an OK film with a well-used split screen process. I give this a 7.

What I find so great about the horror genre is that, even though I've seen over 2500 films of different sub genres and numerous countries already, I keep stumbling upon crazy stuff nobody ever heard about. Even more incomprehensible – especially in the case of "Wicked Wicked" - is how come these movies are still so obscure and unloved? Now this certainly isn't a masterpiece of film-making, but nevertheless I would have expected a movie with such a peculiar gimmick to have some sort of loyal fan-base or at least enjoy some recognition at horror internet forums. Well, apparently not. "Wicked Wicked" remains underrated to this date, but hopefully a proper DVD-release will change that one day sooner or later. Make no mistake, however, the plot of this film is extremely rudimentary and straightforward all in favor of putting the emphasis entirely on the "Duo-Vision" gimmick. This is just a fancy term to say that the split-screen effect lasts throughout whole film. Unlike I feared, this gimmick isn't as irritating as I thought it would be, but nevertheless it's only truly creative in a handful of situations.

There are a couple of highly disturbing murders taking place in a fancy Californian seaside hotel. Beautiful blond women are brutally stabbed by a maniacal culprit and their bodies dumped around the hotel. Former policeman turned security agent is asked to investigate discretely, but the bodies keep piling up at a fast pace. The case gets more personal when his beautiful blond ex-wife arrives at the hotel to put up a singing show.

I don't really know why I bother to keep the killer's identity secret and even somewhat mysterious, because the film itself certainly doesn't. The culprit takes off his mask and exposes his face after the second murder already; probably to illustrate once more that the whodunit aspect of the film really wasn't the producers' main priority. And yet, despite this premature and regrettable revelation, there are multiple tiny plot components that are interesting and worth analyzing. For example, the sub plot about the hotel owner's reluctance to inform the police and his attempts to avoid negative publicity predate the similar "Jaws" plot with nearly two whole years. There's also a bizarre but engaging and original resemblance between this film's main characters and the ones from Gaston Leroux' immortal horror tale "The Phantom of the Opera". There's a pretty imaginative, yet typically rancid 70's and massively perverted twist regarding the culprit's motives to kill blond women near the end (which I really loved) and there's a neat supportive role for Spaghetti western regular Edd Byrnes as a moonlighting lifeguard. If you ever have the opportunity to watch "Wicked, Wicked" – and apparently it's occasionally programmed on TCM – please do so! It's far from being a great film, but it's definitely unique.

The movie serves the gimmick of two screen viewing, but it's more annoying and pointless than anything. Lots of the time one side is just someone doing something mundane like examining wallpaper or sleeping while the other side has the important stuff. There was no real need to do an entire movie like this, it was just an interesting idea to try... unfortunately in practice, it kind of sucks. It's a standard slasher movie with bad acting so you're not missing much if you never see this. Needed a better plot and more thought out use of the duo-vision to be of any worth.