Walk the Angry Beach

If you like old campy sexy sci-fi, this is a must see! Rue McClanahan is best. loved it!

You don't have to know why Rue McClanahan left this off her resume, the film is quite tame in comparisons to films today. There is nudity even by their standards with the striptease. By today's comparison, the film is quite tame. Hollywood is seedy with strippers and robberies. Rue steals the film as Sandy. Tony Vorno played her boyfriend. The film is a low budget obviously. It's entertaining to see at least once.!

I had the honour and pleasure to see miss. Rue McLanahan in one of her early pictures. she reminded me of Marilyn Monroe, she was sensuous, and sultry. i can't understand why she wasn't more successful in movies. Why she didn't win an award i do not know!!

She was very beautiful and very talented. She looked very young, even though she was over 30! This film is no longer available, which is a shame. It was very good.

Many people didn't see the film, but i was able to catch it years ago. I felt it could have been Rue's big break, but she didn't get noticed until she appeared on television in the 1970's. She is still talented and i enjoyed this film.

This movie has some parallels with "Sinister Urge" and "The Girl in Gold Boots"...and for a while, I was thinking this was an "Ed Woodie" - but it's not. It is another attempt to expose the drug and sex culture of Hollywood and how that is used to manipulate young girls aspiring to the silver screen. It was made in 1961 which means the stripper scenes (including Rue Maclanahan) were apparently added later. In 1961 there were already stripper type movies (like this one) at rare theaters; those listings stating "Men Only" or similar, and it would be years before actual laws got enacted regarding the "Adult" classification.

There are some other edited-in segments here and there (stock footage?) but really not as much as in similar B movies of the era. This movie is somewhat confusing - in the first segment it is unclear what is going on at the junkyard, and the part where Rue gets shot with a drug and gets manhandled is also unclear who he is. I couldn't tell. I thought it was Tony. It's dark and all the guys look alike.

This movie is poorly shot in many ways and as one might expect in a film of this nature (soft porn) it has a very low lumen rating. Even the beach scenes are strangely drab. It just looks cheap - and story line aside, I can see why Rue struck this from her list of roles - it just looks way B-; actually a C- movie. And, despite poor lighting Rue looks all of 45 years old. I guess Maybelline was still putzing with 18th century make up formulae.

But I like the violence segments near the end (I am not a fan of violence) and these are relatively creative and not drawn out.

I saw this on an MST crew post-MST3K segment, and they are very funny, here (in a couple of spots I almost died laughing). And that alone, is where it gets points from me. Otherwise a drab dreary depressing movie with halfass treatment of the subject. If you have no sense of humor, just skip it. Use the hour to iron your jeans or something.

You have to have lived in the era. This is as raunchy and daring as you could have gotten in 1961 at a public cinema in the U. S. These movies were made for guys to attend the theater and see topless women and gyrating hips. This is the Times Square type of movie before censorship was lifted about 9 years or so later, when you could show graphic sex or soft porn sex in the movies. Before that, you could only see those films on your projector at home as underground stag films. This film tried to be a cut above the usual exploitation film by having a plot with a message (oddly, showing the sadness and disappointment of life as a stripper) but instead it is just grade z and laughable. I am sure Rue later wished that she could buy up every copy of these and burn them, but unfortunately for her she couldn't.