Les serpents attaquent

What's this? A Harry H. Novak production that is rated PG? Yes Virginia, it's true. This movie is much less exploitive and explicit than other Novak productions. There's only a little blood, and the one scene of nudity comes from a brief look at a skin magazine one character is reading. While I can understand why Novak tried for something more respectable - it's often a lot easier to gather an audience for a PG movie than an R - he forgot to make the movie interesting. The main problem with the movie is that it's very boring. There's far too much chat and not enough action. And the action and horror that's in the movie comes across as quite flat. I'd never thought I'd find a Harry H. Novak movie that was boring, but that's what we have here.

When a couple of kids vacationing with their family in the desert are discovered deceased without apparent cause, an eminent herpetologist (Chew) is recruited to assist baffled police. Assigned a freelance photographer (Chauvet) to document evidence, covert enquiries lead the pair to discover that a secret military testing site might be responsible for the apparent aggressiveness of the local rattlesnake population. Sounds more exciting than it is, unfortunately.

Talky, clichéd time-filler at best, with little in the way of suspense or action; "Rattlers" may not rattle any pacemakers for shock value, and at times tends to look more like a glorified reptile lecture, than a motion picture. Sam Chew is tepid as the tertiary scientist reluctantly seconded to the Mojave desert to provide authorities with a professional opinion on the cause of two suspicious deaths. Chew does a realistic job of looking totally ambivalent about his task, whether it's the dialogue or the method he employs that's driving that motivation is unclear. His offhand approach is flawless, and his male chauvinist streak is neatly contrasted by his tenacious and equally independent tent buddy (Chauvet) who adds some dimension to the acting.

Little attempt is made to have the rattlesnakes realistically interact with the cast, either through props or stunts, and thus, the audience is treated to limited action, totally bereft of thrills or suspense. Even the scene in which Kaye is bathing, while a rogue rattlesnake stalks her, affects no suspense or shock value, despite the elaborate set-up and staging. But the most peculiar feature of the film, is the scene in which, amid all the simmering tension, the two leads digress to Las Vega$ for a night of fun and frivolity on the roulette tables. Like an intermission, no segway or explanation - just a random sojourn to the casino capital for a brief repose, and then it's back to the hard core snake facts and the job at hand.

Earnest in its attempt, there are some dedicated performances in the supporting ranks (Gold, Jostin and a brief but 'memorable' appearance by Kaye who was once a Hollywood most-promising-newcomer in the mid sixties) but this is a snake-movie, not a political thriller, and more action was desperately needed to combat the often soporific dialogue and somnolent storyline.

Now, we know who put those snakes on the plane.

Two kids are killed after falling into a den of rattlers, and the sheriff immediately calls in a snake expert (Sam Chew Jr.). They fell in a rattler den, for goodness sakes! Some good snake scenes, sch as the rattler crawling up the plumber's (Tip McClure) pants, and some ridiculous ones, like the mom (Jo Jordan) in the bathtub getting attacked and not standing up so we could see her.

As you would expect the dialog was terrible, and some scenes ridiculous, like the mine shaft explosions. Someone called it the "Plan Nine From Outer Space" of snake movies. I could not say it better.

This movie begins with two kids climbing up the walls of a canyon and falling into a rattlesnake pit. Because they are so disfigured by the repeated snake bites the local sheriff calls in an expert by the name of "Dr. Tom Parkinson" (Sam Chew Jr.) who works at a nearby college. Although puzzled by the numerous bites he doesn't really offer much help until other cases begin to emerge. After that he and a female photographer named "Ann Bradley" (Elizabeth Chauvet) are led by their investigation to a top-secret army compound which seems to be in the in the middle of all of the incidents. Now, rather than reveal any more of the movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this wasn't terribly bad as far as films of this nature are concerned. Personally, I didn't think the acting was too bad considering the awful script and some of the ridiculous scenarios the actors were given. That said, although I typically enjoy movies of this type I thought this particular film wasn't nearly as good as it could have been and I have rated it accordingly.

Okay, I'm exaggerating when I call this a classic, but I like these '70s revenge-of-nature films. I remember seeing the trailers for films like "Rattlers" and "Grizzly" and "Empire of the Ants" on TV when I was a kid. But would my parents ever let me attend these gems? Heavens no! So now I'm making up for lost time as an adult, rediscovering these terrible films from my youth. In many ways these films are like a time machine to another era--an era with bad clothing, terrible dialogue, cool cars, and in-your-face feminism, buster! While you can't really destroy the plot of "Rattlers" (rattlesnakes attack people, duh!), I would urge you to watch the film for the "performance" of the main female lead. You haven't seen cardboard until you've seen her. Wow. Awesome.