IMDb RATING
4.5/10
1.3K
YOUR RATING
An undertaker and his two friends, who are restaurateurs, make business by going out on town and killing people; the restaurateurs use body parts for their menu, the entrepreneur buries the ... Read allAn undertaker and his two friends, who are restaurateurs, make business by going out on town and killing people; the restaurateurs use body parts for their menu, the entrepreneur buries the rest.An undertaker and his two friends, who are restaurateurs, make business by going out on town and killing people; the restaurateurs use body parts for their menu, the entrepreneur buries the rest.
James Westmoreland
- Harry Glass
- (as Rad Fulton)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This very well may be the first slasher film ever made, and the really weird thing, it is also the first parody of a slasher film ever made.
Therein lies a real social-historical problem: how can the film effectively creating the genre at the same time parody the genre, which doesn't come into existence until the film is released? First, a qualification: What makes a slasher film is extremely graphic gratuitous violence against helpless women, using a long knife as preferred weapon.
Arguably, the real "first" of the genre may have been "Psycho"; but "Psycho" was an exceptional film, and stands out from most of the rest of the genre. And it's in black & white, while a true slasher film requires blood-glaring color (which "Undertaker" has, and remarkably well-kept for its age). I prefer to think of "Psycho" as a precursor.
But "Undertaker" is, first of all, nothing special as a film. (It's just low-budget drive-in fodder, intended to be ignored by the teen-agers necking in the back seat.) Secondly, it takes sadistic-voyeur pleasure in showing us the violence and the blood. Finally, it shows self-consciousness concerning the sadistic-voyeurism, meaning that it is intended to appeal to the very worst instincts in its target audience.
And that makes it pure genre film - well, almost.
As I said, it is also a parody of this genre - in the most outrageous way. The sales pitch the undertaker offers potential customers is genuinely amusing, and the killers repeatedly debunk themselves as silly mad-scientist types that only happen to run a failing diner. What's going on here? There can be only one answer, logically: the film-makers here are actually parodying another genre film.
Perhaps "Psycho" can help us out here, after all. It must be remembered that a major influence on Hitchcock's's film was the motel sequence in Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil". That episode was itself influenced by the '50s "JD" (juvenile delinquent) films that frequently had middle-class suburban families found suddenly in the grip of a punk or a gang of young punks (the most famous being Brando's "The Wild One"). And the JD film was itself a clear off-shoot from the standard B-movie crime-thriller of the early '50s, which is simply a sub-genre of the "police procedural" (e.g., "Dragnet").
So, what "Undertaker" is really spoofing here is the police procedural.
So the indirect progenitor of the slasher film is - Jack Webb's "Dragnet". That's a little unsettling, but true.
At any rate, I'm not a big fan of slasher films, and I only watched this film a second time because it is, so clearly, an historical oddity. And it's real weird that directors like Welles and Webb (who have nothing else in common but this) should, in trying to explore the social significance of socio-pathic crime, point the way for audiences to enjoy such violence voyeuristically in the slasher film. That's cause for reflection.
Which makes "Undertaker", if only for history's sake, a very, very weird little film.
Not recommended for enjoyment, but a must-see for film-history buffs.
Therein lies a real social-historical problem: how can the film effectively creating the genre at the same time parody the genre, which doesn't come into existence until the film is released? First, a qualification: What makes a slasher film is extremely graphic gratuitous violence against helpless women, using a long knife as preferred weapon.
Arguably, the real "first" of the genre may have been "Psycho"; but "Psycho" was an exceptional film, and stands out from most of the rest of the genre. And it's in black & white, while a true slasher film requires blood-glaring color (which "Undertaker" has, and remarkably well-kept for its age). I prefer to think of "Psycho" as a precursor.
But "Undertaker" is, first of all, nothing special as a film. (It's just low-budget drive-in fodder, intended to be ignored by the teen-agers necking in the back seat.) Secondly, it takes sadistic-voyeur pleasure in showing us the violence and the blood. Finally, it shows self-consciousness concerning the sadistic-voyeurism, meaning that it is intended to appeal to the very worst instincts in its target audience.
And that makes it pure genre film - well, almost.
As I said, it is also a parody of this genre - in the most outrageous way. The sales pitch the undertaker offers potential customers is genuinely amusing, and the killers repeatedly debunk themselves as silly mad-scientist types that only happen to run a failing diner. What's going on here? There can be only one answer, logically: the film-makers here are actually parodying another genre film.
Perhaps "Psycho" can help us out here, after all. It must be remembered that a major influence on Hitchcock's's film was the motel sequence in Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil". That episode was itself influenced by the '50s "JD" (juvenile delinquent) films that frequently had middle-class suburban families found suddenly in the grip of a punk or a gang of young punks (the most famous being Brando's "The Wild One"). And the JD film was itself a clear off-shoot from the standard B-movie crime-thriller of the early '50s, which is simply a sub-genre of the "police procedural" (e.g., "Dragnet").
So, what "Undertaker" is really spoofing here is the police procedural.
So the indirect progenitor of the slasher film is - Jack Webb's "Dragnet". That's a little unsettling, but true.
At any rate, I'm not a big fan of slasher films, and I only watched this film a second time because it is, so clearly, an historical oddity. And it's real weird that directors like Welles and Webb (who have nothing else in common but this) should, in trying to explore the social significance of socio-pathic crime, point the way for audiences to enjoy such violence voyeuristically in the slasher film. That's cause for reflection.
Which makes "Undertaker", if only for history's sake, a very, very weird little film.
Not recommended for enjoyment, but a must-see for film-history buffs.
You gotta love this flick about funeral homes and greasy spoon dinners.I'm sure there's a message here but who cares? Canabalism was never so funny.Maybe I'm sick,but I loved it.What's not to like when a fresh killed victims body part is offered as a daily special at the dinner as the rest is displayed at the funeral home.Sick,yes,but done with flair.
6kdix
"The Undertaker and His Pals" is bizarre, but good for a giggle. It's a dark comedy -- I'm almost ashamed of myself for liking it, but do indeed like it despite myself because it's so off the wall. Yes, folks, cannibalism can be funny. "Mort" the Mortician goes to great lengths to preserve his business. The puns made me snicker despite myself.
My best friend and I stumbled across this while still in high school. It was at Blockbuster in the comedy section, and the title was so striking we felt obligated to rent it. After we got over the initial shock, we laughed out loud and ignored the gratuitous violence.
My best friend and I stumbled across this while still in high school. It was at Blockbuster in the comedy section, and the title was so striking we felt obligated to rent it. After we got over the initial shock, we laughed out loud and ignored the gratuitous violence.
"Did you ever think when a hearse drives by, that some day you are going to die?" This is the first sentence in the lyrics of the theme song for this film. Subtle, isn't it? Hell no, it's not, and subtlety is probably the very last thing you should expect to see in this grotesquely absurd and downright demented gore-comedy. He isn't mentioned anywhere in the credits, but the crazed sense of humor, the excessive display of (poor & cheesy) gore, the music and the overall amateurish low-budget production values make this feel like a genuine Herschell Gordon-Lewis movie! Undoubtedly he, The Godfather of Gore, influenced many young filmmakers at that time and "The Undertaker and his Pals" is a fine example to prove this statement. It's a tasteless and simultaneously delicious story about the pact between the undertaker and two restaurant owners residing in the same town. They ride out together at night to barbarically slaughter young girls, and while the undertaker makes big money arranging the funeral service, the victims (or at least parts of them) end up on the special menus board of his pals the restaurant owners. The film is as simplistic as it is ingenious, and it's the ideal excuse for an hour of brainless and blood-soaked entertainment. The character of the greedy undertaker is the funniest of them all and, as usual, the investigating cop is too ignorant to figure out the situation. The gags themselves aren't hilarious, but the poor execution is. If H.G. Lewis didn't make this film himself, I'm sure he will have enjoyed watching it. And so did I.
There are so many posts about how horrible of a film this is, but honestly I'd rather watch this cheese-fest than any horror movie coming out today. Yeah, the jokes in this film are stupid. Even the violence is stupid. It's cheap! And that's what I liked about it. Look at the tag line! B Movies from the 1960's should not be taken too seriously and anyone who comments on how terrible this film is obviously did. If you watch this movie for scares, you're not going to get them. If you watch this movie as a fan of 1960's exploitation/horror, you'll probably enjoy it. Just pop it in with a smile on your face and you'll enjoy this so-called "hour of wasted time and life." LOL. Come on people, lighten up!
Did you know
- TriviaThe original cut of the film included clips from training films for surgeons for shock value. After initial showings, these were trimmed down, hence the short running time.
- GoofsIn the first sequence, when the camera pans along the length of the girl's body, the cameraman's shadow is seen on her leg.
- Quotes
The Undertaker: It will be painless if we dunk you fast.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Mad Ron's Prevues from Hell (1987)
- How long is The Undertaker and His Pals?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- El enterrador y sus colegas
- Filming locations
- Glendale, California, USA(various exterior scenes)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime
- 1h 3m(63 min)
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content