IMDb > The Beast That Killed Women (1965) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
The Beast That Killed Women More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 14 reviews in total 

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Movies like this intrigue me

Author: sickcritik
8 August 2002

This movie was released in 1965. The acting, for the most part, is pretty bad. Some of the girls sound like they are from other countries. The director liked to let the camera roll for long periods of time with only occasional edits. There are almost no close-ups in the movie. It is extremely low budget as well as extremely 1960s. Shot in color but with a minimum of locations used. The beast is some guy in a gorilla suit. The girls have to keep their vaginas covered at all times. The faces are cute and the breasts are silicon-free. In some cases the buns are a little flabbier than what you'd find in the current crop of nudie cutie movies. I don't think some of the prettier girls seen topless in indoor shots are ever seen walking around the campground naked, though many other girls are. There is a blonde who bears a passing resemblance with a young Linda Evans and a brunette who has a couple of scenes on the phone that I would have liked to have seen more exposed for our viewing pleasure.

Movies like this intrigue me. I want to know what theaters they played in (even if there's a Wal-Mart or a Home Depot at the location now). I want to know what happened to the people appearing in this movie. I want to know how they got involved with this production. I want to know where the producer had his office (I mean the exact room). I want to know what sort of profit it made upon release (if it even did make a profit). I want to know all the sordid details about a production such as this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Really funny

4/10
Author: CaligulaAzrael from Warsaw, Poland
29 August 2011

This movie is some kind of a underestimated classic. I'm sure of that. Man chasing naked women in a suit of gorilla - whoa! The acting is so bad, that you cannot even blame the people that they can't play. It's just unbearably funny. It's edited from a bunch of totally idiotic scenes, with nonsense dialogues, fatal lightning..., oh, let's just say that everything in here is very, very bad. Just take the scene of a "belly dance": see how they're clapping to the rhythm, while the director is giving them signs from beyond the camera - you have to see it to believe. And that's the case - it's so campy that you can just love it or leave it. I loved it. Great comedy for a bad mood.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Oh Brother...

5/10
Author: suspiria10 from The Void
29 May 2004

Here we go, back to those swinging sixties.This nudist / horror hybrid is so bad that you can't help but smile and enjoy it all the way through. All the standard prerequisites of a bad movie are here. You get in abundance horrible acting. I have seen people read cue cards with better panache. A bevy of bare boobs and butts parade around for ambiance (after all this is a nudist camp). Let us not forget that the titular title `monster' is a man in a dime store knock off gorilla suit. You know that you are talented when you make a film this bad, no one would think a film like this could be taken seriously.. But the biggest part of a bad film is unintentional laughs and this one has them in abundance. This movie will work well with the bad movie lover. Thankfully it runs about 60 minutes. But even at that it looses steam about 25 minutes before that.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Dead From the Neck Down

1/10
Author: BaronBl00d (baronbl00d@aol.com) from NC
26 January 2005

Shame, shame, shame. This little "horror" film is basically a nudist camp film with the awkward appearance of a guy in an ape suit thrown in as an afterthought. It should not be called the "The Beast That Killed Women," but rather "The Beast That Killed a Woman." Maybe ten minutes of the sixty minute running time(which felt like it was two hours!)is devoted to the ape guy chasing a woman and then finally being dealt with by the police. What do you get for the rest of the film? Bare bottoms and bosoms parading through the woods. Playing volleyball. Swimming. Playing shuffleboard. Talking in bunk beds. Sitting around a campfire. All the while the most appalling music plays. The film has no actors. There are really no characters developed. There is little direction aside from a guy following the movements of nudists in a nudist camp. The film fails miserably as a horror film in any way. It lacks drama. It lacks humour. It is only remotely intriguing from a nostalgic viewpoint(perhaps).

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

If you just HAVE TO see a "nudie-cutie" flick . . .

Author: lazarillo from Denver, Colorado and Santiago, Chile
19 June 2006

The "nudie-cutie" is without a doubt one of the campiest genres in the history of American cinema. Prevented by the censors from doing anything stronger, 60's exploitation filmmakers like David Freiedman, Herschel Gordon Lewis, and Barry Mahon resorted to making "nature documentaries"--basically home movies shot at nudist camps (although the actual nudists were usually told to take a hike and attractive and voluptuous nude models were put in their place). Naturally, the acting and production values were atrocious and the films were much more silly than erotic. It is always refreshing to see naked women before the modern era of institutionalized anorexia and silicone implants, but you'd do better with the later 70's sexploitation films like the "roughies" or the "ghoulies" which often featured the same kinds of women but were far sleazier and had actual (and often mind-warping) plots. You see one nudie-cutie film on the other hand you've seen them all.

If you MUST see one though of these movies though, this is a good choice. It ranks somewhere between "The House on Bare Mountain" and similar "The Monster at Camp Sunshine", but unlike both those earlier films it is in color. It really should be called "The Beast that Killed Woman" as only one woman is killed (and probably owing to censorship, she is fully clothed at the time). The beast also throws a guy in a lake and most of the movie is taken up with the police interviewing this second "victim" in his hospital bed or with various nude or semi-nude women discussing how scared they are and whether they should leave the resort. My favorite scene is where a woman is screaming for help and one of these bimbos responds by jumping out of her top bunk and hopping into the lower bunk with her friend (yeah, that makes a lot more sense than calling the police). The "beast" by the way turns out to be an escaped gorilla (or rather a man in a very unconvincing gorilla suit). What is a murderous escaped gorilla doing in a Florida nudist resort? You know, they never really do say. Oh well.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Utterly terrible with few amusing moments.

3/10
Author: HumanoidOfFlesh from Chyby, Poland
17 August 2008

Delores Carlos and Byron Mabe play a couple,who is visiting a Miami nudist camp.Unfortunately for them an escaped gorilla chooses to show up on grounds of camp and start killing female nudists,one woman to be precise.How the beast in gorilla suit escaped or why it's attacking nudists in their grass huts at night is never explained though we're given a soundless scene near the end of the film where the cops arrest an unnamed woman with a large cage in her home.I have seen my share of bad horror movies and "The Beast That Killed Women" is no exception.It has tons of naked flesh,but no full-frontal nudity.The acting is terrible,the plot is extremely dull and the beast looks laughable.Still the scenes with gorilla are strangely amusing.3 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

'Aunt Peg''s first movie, but not as 'Aunt Peg' nor a porn film

3/10
Author: movieman_kev from United States
12 March 2005

A man recuperating in a hospital recounts how he got there when an ape terrorized a nudist camp. This was marginally better then "Monster at Camp Sunshine", the other feature on Something Weird's double-feature DVD. Obviously, this film only exists to show flesh, and don't get me wrong, the movie is pretty damn bad. But at just an hour it's not THAT awful. Thanks in part to being Juliet Anderson's first film role. Juliet of course would become a porn star in the 80's thanks to her 'Aunt Peg' character, and roles in other Golden Age porn classics.

My Grade: D+

DVD Extras: Double-Bill with "The Monster of Camp Sunshine"; 9 Shorts ( Bring 'em back nude, Expose of the Nudist Racket, Nude Ranch, Beauty and the Beast, Back to Nature, Nudist Fashion show, and 3 intermissions) ; Gallery of Exploitation art; Vintage Drive-in intermission; Theatrical Trailer; Trailers for "Eves on Skis", "Goldilocks and the Three Bares", "Nudes on Tiger Reef", "Nudist Life", and "Pussycat Paradise"

Easter Egg: Highlight Jesse James Drive-In for a bonus Trailer for "Girls Come Too"

Eye Candy: It's mostly set at a nudist camp..duh, so loads of breasts and buns, only bushes are trees tho

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

The timelessnes of gorillas and nudist-films

Author: blueberry_mustard_101 from Nilbog
15 July 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Did anyone ever find gorillas scary? Sure thing, REAL living gorillas can easily tear off your face, and they usually eat their own feces. But the man in the gorillas suit? It's just that so many cheap horror movies had that as the monster, mainly during the pre-war years, 'The Monster Walks', 'The Ape', and 'The Beast That Killed Women' that came out as late as 1965! It's a great title though. Like 'The Beast in Heat'. But I'm pretty sure only one woman is killed.

The movie almost run in real-time. Whenever someone need to move from A to B we can see them walk all the way instead of a quick cut. Most of the plot is also a flashback as told by a hospital-ridden witness to the police. In the middle the visiting hours ends, so the police leave but promise to return the next day. We are somehow lead to believe that the witness is the hero of the story, but it turns out he really just is a random guy who was thrown in a lake by the gorilla.

It's all set in a nudist camp with a long wait-list for a membership. The women all know it's a nudist camp because they are mostly naked but with their backs turned. The men seems to have misunderstood though, because they all keep their boxers on. But with the type of men casted here, that is a good thing. A gorilla kill a single woman, and the owner of the nudist camp gets really nervous that the guests is going to flee. Only four people leave a camp where a murder has been committed, but I often hear that business wise you should only listen to the negatives.

While the scariness of the gorilla is low there is plenty of other things that captures the attention. Like the amount of garbage on top of the soda-machine. Or when the para-medics arrive to pick up the woman killed by the beast, they gladly enlist the help from the crowd to pick up the corpse! The police enlist a female-officer to act as bait for the gorilla, but she doesn't get a gun, and the two male-officers enlisted to watch her both fall asleep. Finally we learn that the gorilla is owned by an old lady, but who she is, and why she has kept a gorilla in her home is of no importance. When the police pick her up there is an audio loop running that I can't tell if it's supposed to be the noise of a unseen crowd or of birds.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

The Beast That Killed Women

1/10
Author: Scarecrow-88 from United States
16 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The fine folks at Something Weird Video bring us this piece of tedious hokum, shot at a Miami Beach nudist colony, strictly of the "point and shoot" variety, with director Barry Mahon implementing a documentary approach that basically follows the reactions and conversations of customers camping responding to a "monster on the loose" (essentially a dude in a monkey costume), attacking folks. Look, the cast of this "picture" (and I use the term "picture" loosely since I think these non-actors would prefer just to get naked than be bothered with reciting lines fed to them by director Mahon and writer Clelle Mahon) aren't trained actors, and it shows painfully. Often, "The Beast That Killed Women" (a gross misuse of a title if there ever was one) consists of women chattering (the audio is pitiful) about the obvious (do we really need endless scenes where naked women, crotches covered, tits exposed, discuss what we have already seen?), with only three true scenes showing the monster of the title and those aren't worth waiting for. The best scenes feature the "star" of this waste of time, Byron Mabe, a patient in a hospital bed, having "suffered shock" after being tossed into a lake by the monkey-costumed Mahon (the director was also the beast!), lamenting the prospects of swallowing jello and crackers as his meal. Coca Cola gets plenty of product placement as a machine shows up consistently during police interrogation scenes. While I had a hard time staying awake during this, I am glad such things exist if just as examples of an era long gone. I was amused at the nudist camp owner's smiling face as he greets with delight returning customers after the beast meets his fate; life returns to normal and the naked are free to bask in the sun without the worry of judgmental eyes bothering them.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Deliciously bad movie.

4/10
Author: Boba_Fett1138 from Groningen, The Netherlands
29 July 2010

Some movies just aren't made to impress and to sweep any awards. They are made purely to please a certain audience. And for its certain audience, at its time, this must had been simple a good fun, bad movie, with some nudity to it.

It's an sexploitation flick from the '60's but that doesn't mean that it's a very daring or exciting one. Seems that for legal reasons they were not allowed to film people below the waist and when they did they only showed the backside of people. So never any full frontal nudity in this movie, which is strange, since this entire movie is set at a nudist camp.

And what a silly nudist camp it is. They are dancing, singing and swimming together and all seem to have a very jolly time. All of the girls are very young and beautiful ones, which is of course not realistic at all, considering what type of people normally attend nudist camps. But beware though of the beast that is lurking in the bushes...no woman is safe from his great strength and extreme cunningness.

There is of course very little story to this all and the story that there is, is all real ridicules. It's simply a extremely poorly done movie, with zero production value. Not sure if this was actually a serious attempt to crossover the monster genre with a sexploitation flick. The end result is hard to take serious as one, anyway.

It was obviously a very cheap movie. All of the camera-shots are extremely static and mostly consists out of people entering the frame or uttering some lines. Non of the people involved were real actors, at least they did not acted that way. It was simply horrendous. It was also extremely hard to understand what they were saying, which was due to some extreme poor sound quality at times. It was fun though at times to hear the crew talking in the background. An obvious unintentional mistake.

But well, you just don't watch a this sort of movie for its innovating, high technical qualities, it's brilliant acting or clever story. You watch it purely to have some fun with and because it's all so bad and extremely silly, you just can't help but to enjoy this movie. It doesn't make it a good movie by any means but it at least makes it a fun one to watch. And luckily it's only just an hour long so you don't feel like you are wasting too much time with it.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history