The Big Snatch

Trashfilm legend David F. Friedman ("Blood Feast" etc.) says that "The Big Snatch" was made for a mere $11.000 by a L.A.P.D. cop!! Well, them cops sure got some serious twisted fantasies! No money or talent can't hide the fact that this flick is pretty sick and disturbing. Two lowlives abduct some saucy chicks and abuse them for days even though it looks like the women are enjoyin' the rape!?! It also seems like it would be pretty easy for the women to escape from the isolated ranch. But in the end they've had enough and boobqueen Uschi Digart ("Supervixens", "Getting Into Heaven" etc.) says; "Let's sock it to'em!" and the girls castrate one guy and shag the other to death! I ain't kiddin'. As Un-PC as you can get, so of course any sleazejunkie must possess this roughie from Something Weird!

I just love the 70s and their ideas for a film. A loser decides to kidnap 5 woman and make them his house sex slaves. There is really not much more to the plot than that. The girls don't like the situation they are in and they hatch an escape plan. As they execute their diabolical escape plan, their way of torturing their 'master', as he makes them call him, is a stroke of genius.. for the viewer anyway! The performances from the actors are what you would expect, ie pretty terrible. All said and done the girls are super cute and have great bodies that are regularly nude. There are lots of sex and rape scenes and there is a good twist at the end. A good movie for those wanting some sleaze and no real plot.

Just so I am clear about why this $11,000 sexploitation film should be a standard for comparison, let me explain. For anyone who questions whether an exploitation film has drifted into sexploitation territory, I suggest immediately watching "The Big Snatch". Only if the flick in question can match "The Big Snatch" in minute for minute skin, should it even be considered as sexploitation. Another test would be, can you turn off the sound for the entire film and lose nothing? One big advantage of losing the audio is no generic porno music, no lame dialog, but you can still get the gist of a "humpathon" like "The Big Snatch". - MERK

What could be better than seeing 70's softcore porn regulars Jane Tsentas, Peggy Church and Uschi Digert in various stages of nudity, ranging from full frontal to bra and panties. To reach this stage, 2 psychos kidnap 5 girls and have them jog in place, do push ups, touch their toes and stretch their bodies. All wear miniskirts...and, well, you can guess the rest. The girls are also forced to lie on their backs and stick their legs straight up in the air. Oh la la! Finally the girls get revenge and the best scene is when Peggy Church grabs a big pair of pliers and crushes the cocks of their tormenters. 70's soft core porn doesn't get much better then this.

The Big Snatch (1971)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

David Friendman produced this rather infamous sexploitation film about a psycho (Harry Chest) who kidnaps five women and takes them to his home out in the desert. Once there he turns them into his sex slave until one day when they get the upper hand and decide to return the torture.

THE BIG SNATCH is a pretty wild and fun sexploitation picture that has a lot of beautiful women who are constantly naked. Plot wise there's really not too much here as there's never an attempt to make this a serious thriller. I mean, the actresses were clearly hired for their bodies and not their acting skills as there's not even an attempt to make them act any other way than sexy. There's no terror that they feel. They're never in any fear for their lives or emotional damage. None of that stuff. Instead they just dance around naked and bounce their boobs.

What makes this film so memorable are the ladies and this includes Uschi Digard as one of them. All five women are quite easy on the eyes and they're asked to do various sexploitation things like slow showers, lesbian make out scenes and other moments where they just bounce around with the camera planted right on their breasts. I'd add that Chest is quite entertaining in his role as the bad guy.

Again, there's nothing here that is mean to be taken serious and there's no question that this was made on a very low-budget. Friedman and company were wanting to make money, not make an Oscar-worthy film. If you're a fan of sexploitation then this here is certainly worth watching.