SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Score_The_Film The first thing you're drawn to is the camera work. It looks and feels like a movie that is well beyond its low budget. Very nice. Then there's the lead actor, Canon. He does a very good job and I was stunned to see he didn't do much more. Too bad.The opening 15 minutes or so are great but it's after the incident at the hotel with the two criminals it starts to go downhill. It's not because of the story either. It's the REALLY drawn-out scenes of little dialogue which involve Canon or others "waiting" to act. At first I kind of dug it because it seemed to give the film more of a realistic feel. But there came a point where this was happening more and more to the point of feeling like nothing more than filler. The editing could have been much tighter and would have greatly benefited the film.But the biggest beef I have I guess is the inconsistency with the two leads' characters. Their actions, at times, seemed to turn on a dime with no justification. I could see how it was possible for each of them to end up the way they did but the journey we're shown doesn't do that effectively.As has been posted before the two criminals in the hotel early on are not explained. I was willing to overlook this until the old man that lets Canon & Rivers into his home suddenly went apeshirt and tried to kill them. At that point the fault has to be placed on Friedel for not giving us even a hint as to the reasons these people were doing what they were doing. I don't mind filling in the blanks sometimes with my imagination but on a project like this I shouldn't have to invent back stories for half the cast.It's worth a curious look for the camera work and for Canon's performance and also to imagine what this film could have been.And for my 2 cents about the ending...it could have either been:1) They were both killed by the gunmen (not likely, although the chapter name is Dance of Death) because the couple didn't seem to care about anything but each other since they're in love or 2) They gave up the car keys to the gunmen not caring about the money since they are now in love. Their love and the future they have together is much more important to them than the money (most likely to be the reason). Not wanting to lose that, I'm sure they gladly gave up the car and the money.As mentioned in another post it's the second half of a double feature from Something Weird Vido with some great trailers as extras. The first film of the double feature is HITCH HIKE TO HELL and that's a complete gas to watch from start to finish. FUN!

thatguy_78757 I just rented a "Something Weird" Double Feature DVD.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140174/ Hitch Hike to Hell (1977) and Date with a Kidnapper. (SPOILERS) BAD BAD BAD. Horrible harsh lighting, static boring acting, lame still static camera-work. Phony acting except for the mother, the cop who was played by Russell Johnson ( The professor on Gilligans Island) and one of the victims mother. A Norman Bates type is mad that his sister ran away from home- so he murders runaway teens on the highway. I tried to find it so bad it was funny- just BAD.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077401/ Date with a Kidnapper (1976) Another Kidnap movie- but this one was WAY better. Clean color- VERY good camera work (nearly every shot was on a dolly). Eddie Matlock, a guy who looks like a cross between Ted Bundy and Gil Gerard (Buck Rogers) kidnaps a dorky college girl. He hides her in a sleazy motel- then 2 other unrelated gangsters come in and rape her.someone on IMDb said: "A woman living in a boarding house is kidnapped by a small-time criminal. Soon others in the gang try to take her away from him so they can get the ransom."I don't think I agree with that- I don't think they were part of the same gang. At one point Eddie Matlock says " I don't know you!"Some VERY cool shots. But it got bizarre when the two fall in love and wind up at a farmhouse owned by an insane ex cop who looks like Santa Claus. He comes after Eddie with a knife and he shoots Santa. Then we see Santa with a pitchfork in him (?). Then they just let 3 hoodlums take the ransom money (!)Did the 3 hoodlums kill them?Was the money traceable? Is that why they let the robbers have it? I didn't buy them falling in love- unmotivated.I agree that I like the direction- the little touches like the old man ignoring the screeches.PS- did they just abandon the mute girl at the farm?

Flixer1957 *May Contain Spoilers*Quiet school-girl Leslie Ann Rivers is lusted after by every man in the first part of the movie, then abducted for ransom by mean John Canon (aka Jack Canon or Jack Cannon, who also starred in Friedel's AXE.) Canon's roles were generally those of dirtballs and sadists, but this time he's not the worst character in the picture, and the KIDNAPPED COED's troubles are only beginning. As he did with AXE, Friedel treats us to many creepy, decrepit Carolina settings and bizarre, often degenerate supporting characters. One old farmer here looks and acts like an aging, maniacal Grizzly Adams; Larry Drake appears as a hulking nursing home attendant. The ending is depressing beyond belief. Now available on DVD with HITCH HIKE TO HELL, another Harry Novak hit. Between this, CONVICTS' WOMEN, THE CANDY SNATCHERS and a few others, fans of nasty kidnap pot-boilers were in Hog Heaven back in the 1970s.

Roger Frederick Despite some fairly decent acting and cinematography, this movie has plot holes you can drive a truck through. These guys at this hotel must just wait around for someone to check in with a woman for them to rape, as there is no other discernible motive for them coming to the room. Even after she tells them that she's the daughter of a rich man, they aren't interested in earning a reward by rescuing her, or kidnapping her themselves as far as the audience is told.Then there's the amiable old farmer that puts the kidnapper and the girl up for the night. At first he seems to be the first truly decent person seen in this film, then, for no apparent reason, he's a psycho. First, he spies on the lovers at night and is holding a knife. You're waiting for: A. One of them to notice the old psycho pervert with a knife. B. The old psycho pervert to use the knife. C. The old psycho pervert to decide against doing anything and slink away. You don't get any of this, the scene just changes to morning, inexplicably. Then the old guy comes at the kidnapper with a pitchfork. Why? I sure can't tell. He continues to attack the kidnapper who draws a gun and gives the old guy every chance to stop attacking. When the kidnapper is finally forced to kill the old farmer, the girl goes all hysterical about him being a murderer and runs away! What was he supposed to do? Let the psycho farmer impale him on the pitchfork?Also there's some question about what happens in the final scene. I can't really elaborate without giving away the so-called 'surprise ending', but the DVD calls the scene "Dance of Death", which leads you to wonder if any death actually took place, because, if it does, you don't see it.I watched this hoping for a good, old-fashioned exploitation sleaze film, and it wasn't that, but it wasn't good either. Make of that what you will.