Ten Violent Women

There's something liberating about watching a movie with many scenes so dark you can't tell what's happening. You get to make up your own movie. And brother let me tell you no matter how terrible your idea is, it's miles better than this trash. It's not all dark though. There are dimly lit scenes where you can tell what's going on. Savor these moments. Memorize each person's clothing as that will be the only way you can tell them apart when the darkness returns. The most well-lit scenes take place outside. Perhaps the sun should receive a lighting credit. As with every Ted Mikels movie, there's a little bit of cheesecake. But unless you're really hard up its nothing to get hot & bothered over. Avoid this crapper.

There are plenty of directors who could make a crime comedy/women in prison movie as bad as "10 Violent Women," but only Ted V. Mikels could make it a chore to watch.

The titular women (initially eight, not 10) are working as gold miners (seriously) at the movie's opening, but when the one man on the crew detonates some dynamite and almost kills one of the women, they decide, naturally, to turn to crime—"with class"—for easy money. So they rob a jewelry store, though for all their talk of wanting easy money their plan is unnecessarily complex, involving decoys, disguises and one working on the inside (I think; the storytelling is only slightly less murky than the lighting). Usually when robberies have such elaborate set-ups the goal is to make off with the loot without the victim realizing she or he has been ripped off until the thieves are long gone. But apparently that's too stealthy for our violent women, so they end up holding the store owner up at gunpoint anyway, taking his "assistant" (who may—or may not—be one of the violent women) hostage. They ditch their wigs and stolen limo in an alley then, after stopping in a park for a lame water gun fight, our women head for Vegas to fence the stolen goods. Sheila (Sally Alice Gamble) is the one who seems to have some connections, in that she knows a guy who sorta knows another guy, so she arranges to sell the stolen jewels to Leo (Mr. Mikels himself, making a much better impression as an actor than director). When Leo tries to pay the women in bags of cocaine, they attack him and leave with the jewels and cocaine—but not before Sheila finishes him off by stomping her high heeled shoe into his chest.

Besides being the movie's high point, the death by high heels scene is the demarcation line when "10 Violent Women" goes from "so bad it might actually be kind of fun" to "Oh, God, when will this thing be over?" Sheila is the older one of the group (one online reviewer accurately described her as looking like Mrs. Roper on "Three's Company") but she's not the smartest. After getting blitzed on tequila, she approaches two men in a bar and asks if they'd be interested in buying the coke, even though it's so obvious they're cops they might as well be in uniform. In short order: Sheila is killed when resisting arrest, three more girls escape and the remaining four end up in prison, where they join forces with two inmates (so I guess it does add up to 10 violent women after all). The prison sequence should be where we find the movie's moneyshots. But in "10 Violent Women," it's when it becomes a tedious bore, skimping on all the WIP staples: nudity, sex and violence. Only Georgia Morgan as the obligatory sadistic lesbian warden makes much of an impression. A mature woman with a blond pompadour, dragon lady nails and a cigarette-cured rasp, Morgan delivers the movie's best performance and would have been a perfect addition to John Waters' stable of actors. Unfortunately for her, "10 Violent Women" is Morgan's only movie.

Predictably the girls escape, their plan so easily executed you kind of wonder why no one tried breaking out sooner. The movie ends as stupidly as it began, with a twist that's only slightly less ludicrous than a group of women dressed as "Charlie's Angels" rejects working as gold miners in the 1970s.

It wouldn't have taken much to make "10 Violent Women" watchable: replacing a few members of the cast, if not for acting ability then for physical attributes (most of the women are fairly average looking); better lighting (or even just lighting); and more—a lot more—sex, nudity and violence. Some character development and imaginative storytelling would be a nice touch, too. Instead, "10 Violent Women" is a slog, its primary redeeming feature being retroactively making Mikels' earlier work ("Girl in Gold Boots," "The Doll Squad") seem artfully crafted by comparison.

In the history of cinema, you'd have a tough time thinking of a worse filmmaker than Ted Mikels. Although Ed Wood Jr. has gotten a lot of attention by creating abominable (yet sadly funny) films like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "Glen or Glenda", Mikels' record of schlock films is far more impressive (is that the right word?)--with such notable crap films as "The Corpse Grinders", "The Worm Eaters", "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things", "The Astro-Zombies", "Girl in the Gold Boots" (currently on IMDb's Bottom 100 list) and "Apartheid Slave-Women's Justice" to his credit (or, discredit). And, this list is only a smattering of the sort of crap Mikels has created and continues to create to this day.

Oddly, however, although I admit that his films are horrible in every way, I make it a point to watch them whenever I can. This is because I am a glutton for punishment and occasionally like laughing at an inept and stupid film. Some of this is because I often watch and review art films, foreign movies and the like--and sometimes I just need a break (especially since some of these can be depressing or pretentious). And, Mikels films are sure a far cry from the norm!!! Eight lady miners (who look NOTHING like miners) decide that this sort of work isn't for them, so they decide to devote themselves to a life of crime. However, things don't go well and they are sent to prison--where there is, naturally, a sadistic girl-lovin' guard in charge (a standard cliché for bad movie makers during the 70s and early 80s). What happens next is for you to discover for yourself....if you can stomach it!

Like any of Mikels' masterpieces, this one features bad acting, an annoying and very invasive soundtrack, inept direction and nothing to recommend it. Unlike some of Mikels' earlier films, this one has a bit of nudity and rough language but unlike his most recent films, it at least appears to have been filmed with a real movie camera (he's taken to using what looks like an iPhone or super-cheap home movie camera for his more recent films). And, unless you like terrible films, there's nothing to recommend this one...nothing. A wonderful example of how bad Mikels can be but not a particularly fun movie to watch.

By the way, I actually found one Mikels film that was, inexplicably, pretty good. One of his earliest films, "Black Klansman", is actually well done and make you wonder how Mikels' films got progressively worse instead of progressively better!

Having watched several of Mr. Mikels' films over the years for no clear reason, the only thing I can say about most of them is that they are not as cluelessly inept as Edward D. Woods Jr. This, unfortunately omits the goggle factor as you stop and rewind to make sure that, yes, indeed, Mr. Woods did indeed do that. Mr. Mikels never astonishes in that way, which means there's usually absolutely no reason to watch them, except to wonder how he continued to raise money for the next one.

Nonetheless, you may feel the need to look at one of Mr. Mikels movies for yourself. That's all well and good with me; I'm not often here to tell you what to watch, but more about what you'll see if you watch attentively. On that basis, I'd like to make your experiment a little less painful, and this one actually has some decent underlit cinematography by Yuval Shousterman. Perhaps this was a means of coping with a budget so small that they couldn't afford any lights, but then, a good lighting man can make a virtue of necessity.

My review was written in May 1984 after a screening at Selwyn theater on Manhattan's 42nd St.

"10 Violent Women" is a strange women's prison film which will be of interest to followers of that specialized genre. Made in 1978, pic was released regionallly in 1982 and is reviewed on its belated firs appearance in New York.

Convoluted storyline (punctuated by freeze-frames and announcement titles-ove as gags) opens with eight women getting frustrated with their work and turning to crime. They successfully pull off a jewelry store robbery, but are nabbed (roughly halfway through the film) by narcs when they try to sell them cocaine obtained from Leo the fence (Ted V. Mikels, the director, in a support role).

Action in stir is generally routine, except for a memorably overdone turn by Georgia Morgan as the extremely butch head guard, who likes to doff her mannish uniform at night, put on frilly nightgowns and force the prettier inmates to submit to everything from humiliation to whippings. After a much too easy escape from behind bars, heroines Samantha (Sherri Vernon) and Maggie (Dixie Lauren) mark time unconvincingly until a shah whose sacred scarab ing they stole (in the jewel robbery) invites them onto his yacht, drops criminal charges and whisks them off in an absurd happy ending.

"Women" is the sort of odd B-movie that proliferated a decade ago for regional and drive-in circuit use (when budgets under $50,000 per film were possible), but since then tv action shows have obviated the production of such pictures. Filmmake Mikels, for example, made an interesting actioner "The Doll Squad" in 1972 with Francine York starring as the leader (named Sabrina) of a trio of tough female undercover agents, which was the prototype of "Charlie's Angels".

Though too kinky in spots for general audiences (Mikel as Leo is killed gruesomely by a "heroine" stabbing him repeatedly with her spiked heel), "Women" is technically adequate low-budget action fare. Its title defies precise calculation, since only three or four heroines are in the spotlight at any one time.