IMDb > Girl Gang (1954) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Girl Gang More at IMDbPro »

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

9 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

So bad, its actually good

8/10
Author: mike-806 from United States
23 April 2006

This movie is actually one-of-a-kind. It is so very bad, especially the sound, the lines, the acting.... that it is really entertaining, worth a view. I would not buy it, or rent it...but if it pops up on Comcast "Something Weird", as it did for me...check it out. The fact that it shows how to free-base heroin, way back in 1954 , marijuana (Mary-Janes)and the whole drug scene, way back then, just really amazed me. The babes are "cheese-cake" all the way, Joanne Arnold went on to be a Playmate Centerfold May 1954 (The month/year I was born) makes it extra special. Joe, the drug dealer wearing a "tie", the "like Mom's kitchen -so warm and friendly"...the old cars...very entertaining in a strange kind of way!...

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

my mother

1/10
Author: smagnuson58-1 from United States
25 December 2008

My mother played the part of one of the girls, Wanda! So here we are me, my husband, my step-son, and my mother (Mary Lou O'Connor) watching Girl Gangs on Christmas day!!

I can remember my mom telling me that she did a movie before I was born, and now I am finally seeing it. I cannot believe what this movie contains for the time period. It is astonishing the things that they show the people doing, or is it just the fact that my mom is in it that I find it so unbelievable! I have only watched it because she is in it, other than that I wouldn't give it the time of day.

Girl Gangs is a really horrible movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Better than expected 50's exploitation quickie

6/10
Author: gordonl56 from Canada
5 January 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

GIRL GANG 1956 This is one of those has to be seen to be believed films. It is a low rent exploitation quickie about juveniles getting mixed up with various drugs.

This one starts with several bobby-sox types standing on the side of road with their thumbs out. A man pulls up and offers them a ride. The girls pile in and are soon whispering sweet nothings in his ear. Another car pulls up and two more girls jump out. They stick a gun in the man's face and drag him out of the car. It is a gun butt to the back of the head first, then, his wallet and car are stolen.

The girls drive into the seedy end of town and drop the car off at the back of a rundown apartment. Inside is drug dealer, Timothy Farrell, who buys the hot car off the girls for a couple of hundred bucks. He then has his man drive the car over to a garage for a new paint job etc.

Farrell gets most of the cash back from the girls by selling them some marijuana. Farrell is making a nice living selling drugs and buying stolen goods etc. He then shows one of his girls how to shoot up heroin. (This bit is surprisingly detailed considering the year) Farrell even has an old Doctor, Harry Keaton on the payroll. Keaton has lost his licence and literally works for a bottle of booze.

Farrell has one of the girls go to work at a local business. She bats her lashes at the manager and soon has the man chomping at the bit for a bit of horizontal mambo. This is all a part of Farrell's plot. Now Farrell steps up and threatens the man with the Police if he does not pay. The girl will of course scream rape if the man does not play ball.

There is another bit where all the girls need to sleep with 5 different boys before they can join the gang. The new girl tokes up and heads for the "private business" room to get the deed done.

Next we have a bunch of the kids pulling a gas station hold-up for drug cash. Needless to say this enterprise goes sideways with several dead and one of the girls seriously wounded. It is back to Farrell's place so the defrocked doctor can save the girl. The Police though are soon on the trail. Farrell's apartment door is soon kicked in and Farrell and his bunch grabbed up. The doc, Keaton, makes a dash for safety but collects several ounces of un-needed lead in his back for his troubles.

Even with the terrible acting, and rather static camera work, the film draws a viewer in, if only to see where the tale is going. The girls in the film spend most of their time pointing their upper-works at the camera, while showing as much leg and thigh as possible. Among said women folk, is former Playboy Playmate of the Month for May 1954, Joanne Arnold.

The director of this "masterpiece" is Robert C. Dertano. Dertano's other films include, RACKET GIRLS, GUN GIRL'S and Paris AFTER MIDNIGHT. The cinematography was by William Thompson. Thompson was the Ed Wood's director of photography on JAIL BAIT, BRIDE OF THE MONSTER, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE etc.

If you are a fan of bottom dweller cinema then give this one a look see. You might be surprised.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Marijuana and Heroin Abused in this Vintage Exploitation Crime Thriller

Author: zardoz-13 from United States
7 August 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Racket Girls" director Robert C. Dertano's thriller "Girl Gang" qualifies as a vintage exploitation movie about crime and narcotics. Mind you, this abysmally acted, 63-minute, black & white movie is strictly your standard dope-fiend film from fade-in to fade-out. Nevertheless, the casual use of marijuana and the extremely explicit depictions about both cooking heroin and injecting it respectively for men and women must have been controversial for its day. Producer George Weiss couldn't have received any dispensation from the Motion Picture Association of America because the still intact Production Code prohibited Hollywood from illustrating how to commit a crime, and using illegal narcotics very much constituted a crime in the 1950s. Otto Preminger didn't dare go as far out on the censorship limb as "Girl Gang" did in 1954 when he produced his own controversial Frank Sinatra epic "The Man with the Golden Arm" about heroin abuse in 1955 and altogether ignored the Production Code Seal of Approval. Otherwise, "Girl Gang" casts exploitation regular Timothy Farrell of "The Violent Years" and "The Devil's Sleep" as a two-bit crime boss who hooks teens on marijuana and/or heroin and dispatches them to crime crimes so they can fence him the goods and he can repay them with either pot or smack. "Girl Gang" does not entirely concern itself with distaff criminals. A quartet of devious dames hijacks a man's car on a lonely highway and leaves him sprawled unconscious on the pavement, but the bulk of the action follows the crime boss and his efforts to take advantage of women while they perform his dirty deeds. Eventually, the police catch up with him after the girl gang is shot-up by authorities and traced back to his hideout in an apartment complex. The subject matter contains greater historical relevance than the cinematic technique. There is a slackly staged gas station robbery toward the end of the action. Just about everything is run-of-the-mill, right down to William Thompson's cinematography.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Cheesier than a extra cheese pizza...and infinitely more satisfying!

6/10
Author: dolly_the_ye-ye_bird from United States
8 May 2011

Girl Gang is so bad it's good. The acting is sub-par, yes. The direction isn't great. But the plot is actually pretty well thought out: Drug dealer uses a couple of his regulars to recruit young 'greenhorns' to his 'candy'. Once they get hooked on weed, he moves them on to heroin and all of them eventually find that the heroin habit is more expensive, therefore they 'owe' the dealer more and more money. He then basically forces the girls into prostitution and 'rape' allegation shakedowns to get the money to pay him back. Time goes on and they get deeper in debt to him and get into worse and worse criminal activity to support their habit. This is certainly not a family night movie, what with all the sex and prostitution and blackmail. There is even a point where it shows step by step how to freebase heroin...you learn something new every day! If you have no sense of humour, or the slightest understanding of the time period in which this film was made, I don't suggest you waste your time. On the other hand, if you love 'Teenagers Going to Hell' delinquency films of the fifties and sixties as much as I do, you'll love this monstrosity! It's a campy cheese-fest worthy of Mystery Science Theater 3000 that actually holds up decently on it's own!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Cinematic Masterpiece, a game changer in the film industry.

10/10
Author: bletcherstonerson from Detroit
28 April 2015

This film when watched on a Ultra HD screen takes on a a whole new viewing experience, if one can put aside their predilections for what the film "should" be, they will uncover an existentialist nightmarish allegory of the complacency and conformity of the nuclear age. Previously I viewed this film as a standard "exploitation" film. I viewed it a second time , late one night after 13 energy drinks, 7 cups of coffee and sleep deprivation of 49 hours; and came to a far different conclusion. When examining Ed Wood's subconscious one can see that he was comparing the heroin addicted life style that the Girl Gang was engaged in to that of the prescriptive feminine standard of living in the 50's where every female was racing through life trying to imitate one another and never taking time for introspective review. Wood's conclusion was that this conformity led to death, or a mental prison that was inescapable. While viewing this celluloid sociological warning to women imprisoned by the etiquette and mores of the nuclear age, those who would give up their careers and dreams for a marriage and the security of a husband with a pension, it is good to remember the wisdom bestowed by Ed Wood's own words," Live life because life is to be lived."

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Sleazy fun.

2/10
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
13 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is, without question, a bad film. The acting is often pretty crappy (with 'actors' who can't deliver their lines), the production values low and the emphasis is purely on exploitation! However, in a sleazy way, it's also very interesting and certainly will keep your attention! It definitely falls into the category of 'so bad, it's good'!

This film is of some mild interest because one of the main characters, 'Doc', is Harry Keaton--Buster's real life brother. You can't tell this by looking at him or seeing him act--he's just another apparent no-talent in a vast sea of no-talents! Additionally, the film stars Timothy Farrell as 'Joe'--a sleazy sort much like the guys he played in other no-budget exploitation films as "Test Tube Babies", "Glen or Glenda" and "Jail Bait". He plays his usual greasy crooks--and in such roles, Farrell (a bailiff in real life) was pretty effective.

"Girl Gang" begins with a group of nasty women beating a guy up and stealing his car. It seems they are heroin addicts and have brought the car to Joe so they can get a fix. In fact, throughout the film LOTS of troubled people come to Joe for pot and heroin--and Joe is very obliging--giving them their first dose for free. Then, when they get hooked, Joe has them commit various crimes to pay for more. You see ladies prostitute themselves, blackmail, commit robberies and the like--all to get their beloved heroin. Eventually, as in all exploitation films of the era, these folks get what's coming to them. But in between, the film is very explicit for the time--with rather frank discussions of prostitution as well as how to shoot heroin. The latter was VERY realistic--and I wonder how many folks might have learned to use the drug simply by watching Joe give a step-by-step lesson to a newbie on using it!

As I said, the film is pretty funny because it's so badly made. Look at the 'ladies' delivering their line when the gang meets up with Joe at his hangout or the cop and doctor talking outside in front of the Prison Ward sign. None of them delivered their lines with any conviction--just like some semi-literates reading cue cards. Also, look for the shootout. When one of the wicked ladies shoots the gas station attendant, she then tosses the gun to the attendant who is lying on the ground bleeding. And, he then shoots the gang members!! Huh?!? But my favorite is the ultra-lame cat fight near the end of the movie. Seeing Betty White and Bea Arthur doing this scene together would have been sexier--and a lot more convincing!! Overall, terribly bad...but a hoot to watch with other bad movie buffs. Enjoyable trash.

Was the above review useful to you?

Stay were you are big boy I really mean business

5/10
Author: kapelusznik18 from United States
17 January 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

****SPOILERS**** Movie about juvenile delinquency in the mid 1950's USA with a gang of teenage girls and their boy hangers ons, for drugs sex and party going, working for this sleazy drug pusher Joe who uses them to steal cars and blackmail, by screaming rape, their male victims. It's Joe's #1 squeeze June a drug addicted hooker who together with disbarred doctor, for preforming abortions on the side, Doc Bedford who run the operation luring clueless teenager into their gang and corrupting them with both drug & sex.

Joe overplays his hand by staging a gas station robbery that goes bad with two of his main players or robbers Bill & Wander ending up being gun down by the gas station attendant after he himself was shot down by them. With Wanda barley hanging on to life she's rushed to Joe's hideout where Doc Bedford is ordered to preform a life saving operation on her without an antistatic. Being barley sober, after taking a few shots of whiskey, to get the job done he screws up big time letting Wanda die on the operating or better kitchen table after going into shock due to loss of blood. That's just as the police storm the place busting Joe & June with Doc Bedford taking to flight.

***SPOILERS*** Doc Bedford's attempt to escape the long, in this case short, arm of the law ended up in disaster for the old guy. Shot in the back while fleeing the police, despite being unarmed, the Doc ends up fatally wounded in a drainage ditch and dies before medical help can arrive. As for Joe & June their facing long hard time behind bars for what they did as well as reprisals from their fellow convicts who in many case were, in being addicted on drugs, victims of theirs. P.S "Girl Gang" was released as a double feather with the Ed Wood classic "The Violent Years" that covered much of the same material, juvenile delinquency, that it did.

Was the above review useful to you?

Definitely Dated

4/10
Author: Uriah43 from Amarillo, Texas
23 June 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie begins with four young ladies robbing a man, stealing his car and leaving him unconscious on the side of the road. They then drive the stolen car to a man named "Joe" (Timothy Farrell) who gives them $50 each and has a young man take the car to a garage to have it repainted. We soon find out that Joe not only deals in stolen automobiles but he also has a small gang of young men and women who have become addicted to heroin and rely upon him to supply their needs. He hooked them on it and now he essentially owns them. Now, while this movie would pretty much be unremarkable today what's interesting about this picture is that it was filmed back in 1954--ten years before the advent of the "hippies" and the explosion of drugs in the 60's. That said, the subject of heroin (and possibly marijuana) was probably pretty novel for its time. Because of that this particular audience probably had no idea about the effects of either drug. As a result what they are shown about marijuana is greatly exaggerated. Conversely, the effect of the heroin "trip" is somewhat minimized--but not the addictive quality. Naturally, it's that result which is what Joe is aiming for as he skillfully uses marijuana as the "gateway drug" to entrap these young men and women into an addiction to heroin. And they willingly do whatever he says to get their next fix. Whether it requires theft, prostitution, blackmail or even murder doesn't matter to them. Neither does it matter to Joe as long as he makes money. Anyway, as far as the movie is concerned I thought it was definitely dated and had a B-movie quality to it. As a matter of fact, other than the presence of Joanne Arnold (as "June") I can't really think of anything that stood out. Accordingly, I rate this film as slightly below average.

Was the above review useful to you?

Gang Bang

6/10
Author: spelvini (spelvini@mail2mute.com) from New York City
17 March 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A study in drug abuse like Reefer Madness, Girl Gang emphasizes the sleazy aspects associated with like-minded juveniles who find themselves corrupted by marijuana, and Heroin and delivers a mish mash of gratuitous exploitation.

In an isolated apartment on the wrong side of the tracks June (Joanne Arnold) hangs out with her friends who come there to buy "weed" cigarettes, marijuana, from Joe (Timothy Farrell) who runs a business of selling Heroin to school kids and getting them addicted so they will pull crimes for him. Joe keeps a disbarred alcoholic physician Doc (Harry Keaton) on hand to help with assisting the school kids with clean injections. Joe secures a job for June with a local merchant in order to support her mounting heroin habit. June begins selling sexual favors, and when she is caught stealing money from a business Joe and Doc come forward to blackmail the man into silence. When Joe sends June and some others out to rob a local gas station, a girl gets shot and the police close in on the drug-infested apartment.

It's too bad that, given the resources, the movie could not have been better. Judging by the mise-en-scene, the budget for the film looks to be about as good as it was for Detour nine years earlier. The major difference being that Detour has a strong central character and a strong story arc that carries the viewer from the opening through to the end, whereas Girl Gang never seems to focus on the right thing, first having a girl-gang robbery, which introduces us to drug dealer Joe, which leads us to June, but since June is our main character it only makes sense for us to learn about her and where she comes from and why she has ended up at Joe's apartment. Since we never know why June does what she does we have nothing to care about in the character and her downfall doesn't mean anything to us.

Part of this is the charismatic screen persona of leads Tom Neal and Ann Savage in Detour. Not to take away from the relative merits of Joanne Arnold, and Timothy Farrell, but they were not A-listers nor were they strong actors, although Farrell did have a stronger presence than the eye-candy Arnold. To be honest Arnold was cast because they had a great body and this vehicle was to sell from the male gaze that was seeking cheap visual thrills from her presence on screen.

Arnoldhad done the Playboy spread in 1954 and the producers must have thought they had a sure box-office with her in the movie. She's beautiful to look at but seeing her in motion in the movies it's clear she is not an actress. Her face never registers a glimmer of thought and the lack of her characters progression in the film makes it a flat gratuitous thing.

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