Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

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

gordonl56 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.

MartinHafer 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.

zardoz-13 "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.

preppy-3 First off, the title is wrong. There are girls and there is a gang but they're only incidental to the story. Most of the movie deals with a bunch of very overage "teenagers" getting hooked on heroin. Purportedly this movie is supposed to be a warning against it, yet it shows them all having a great time while on it! They're singing, dancing (a sequence that goes on for 10 minutes. Why? To eat up running time!) and having sex...so what it they're hooked? There's even a sequence which shows--step by step--how to inject heroin!Very cheaply done, all horrible acting with uproarious dialogue. Also the worst use of music ever! Most of the time it doesn't even fit the scene! It's really hard to explain how totally worthless this movie is. Not even bad/good. Skip it.