Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

brucerussellmyers In 1972, the last Apollo mission landed on the moon and the country settled into its second Nixon administration and the residue of a turbulent decade that would slowly transform the optimism of the space program and civil rights era into an era of cynicism, corruption, and disco.Enter Chuck, Maureen, and Carol - each representing an archetype of these troubled times in a highly allegoric film (actually I found the character of Carol unnecessary to my thesis). Chuck is apparently driving his mobile home north through the Florida Everglades when he picks up the two aforementioned females. The mobile home is clearly a reference to the Apollo missions as it is equipped with a phone to some mystery home base (they even talk in astro-speak) and Chuck's outfit closely resemble Buzz Aldrin's wardrobe - at least how I imagine it.Maureen is hesitant to climb aboard and we soon learn that she is a seer, a soothsayer who combines her past experiences with a Catholic priest and her current worship of the pagan god (yep, you guessed it) Apollo to inform her trepidation. Maureen spends much time alone in the film visiting pagan temples in the everglades and reading her tarot cards. She interestingly calls Chuck an "Aries Superhero," and none of the men who landed on the moon were Aries. Is Chuck the next traveler to our lone satellite? Coincidence?What is most fascinating about Maureen's story is her encounter with two symbolic characters. A politician character named Max (clearly an acronym for Moon Astronaut Explorer) who promises her that he is 1000% for any issue she supports. He appears to have index cards for all possible positions (pro-choice, pro-life for example) and Maureen shoos him away, perhaps disturbed by his impossible math.A more interesting encounter is when Maureen meets up with a balloon wielding clown. She is amused at his collection of gas-filled spheres and takes one to hold. The camera angle starts to suggest that the balloon is a moon trying to eclipse the sun. This potential darkness disturbs Maureen, and the clown comes closer. The clown mask is suspiciously close to Richard Nixon's face and when he unmasks, Maureen flees in terror. Who was under the mask? My guess is that it was the doomed cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov.I should mention that much of the movie involves gratuitous nudes scenes suggesting lots of casual sex and immoral romps. The everglades are also suspiciously free of alligators, although a pretty lame boar appears when our characters get hungry. My best guess is that the boar is often used a symbol of inner weakness, and we soon realize that Chuck may not be up for space flight. The sex is probably a biblical reference to God telling us to be fruitful, multiply, and try and get back to the moon (that part was omitted from the King James version so popular today).Nevertheless, this movie has peaked my interest in physics and engineering - and perhaps a field trip to South Florida is in the works.

Michael_Elliott Pick-up (1975) 1/2 (out of 4) Crown International flick was part of BCI's Drive-In Collection set but I'm really not sure what the hell this film was trying to do. Two hippie chicks (Jil Senter, Gini Eastwood) hitch a ride with a hippie guy (Alan Long) but soon they both regret it. As I said, I have no idea what this movie was trying to do but it's without question one of the dumbest films I've ever seen. I love drive-in trash but this thing was simply beyond bad and the only reason I don't give this thing a BOMB rating is because it's so strange that you have to watch it until the end just to see how much stranger it will get. The two female leads only appeared in one movie and this is it. I wouldn't say their performances were awful but they are pretty bad but a lot of this is due to the really bad screenplay, which has everything from a priest molesting one of the girls to one having some sort of sexual fascination with God (or perhaps it was meant to be Jesus). There is quite a bit of nudity, which is good because otherwise this film would be unwatchable. I'm going to guess this film was trying to be some sort of Easy Rider rip off but it doesn't have a single moment going for it.

toyman1967 I am beginning to think that I wasted my money on the Drive-In Cult Classics set!!!! This is the third movie that I watched from this 8-pack set and they are just getting worse and worse. I am not expecting academy award winners but I was expecting something at least watchable. The only good thing about this movie was the cool bus!!! I've seen hotter soft core porn on the late night Oxygen Channel show "Bliss". I do have to admit that the two lead women are 70's exploitation HOTTIES and that's why I'm giving this film 2 stars for obviously naked reasons. I sure do hope these movies in this set get better.

Zeegrade Don't let the abundance of positive votes for glowing reviews fool you. Packaged with other exploitation movies like Superchick and Malibu High, Pick-Up is nothing but pretentious wanderings filled with metaphysical mumbo-jumbo dialogue by Bernard Hirschenson who, no surprise, never directed again. Free spirited Carol and deep thinking Maureen hitch a ride with Chuck who must deliver a large RV from Miami to Tallahassee but somehow gets stuck in the Everglades where they prance around naked or partake in suedo-sacrificial ceremonies with Greek deities. Yeah, pure grindhouse experience there. At least the two young beauties bare their bodies consistently which is the only saving grace of this film. At some points in the movie a backstory is provided for the three travelers, albeit disjointedly, providing little insight into why they are at this particular station in life. I'm perfectly fine with the notion that Pick-Up has bigger meaning than I might give it credit, however this is not a movie that belongs in an exploitation collection. The cumulative score of 5.0 as I write this is more indicative of the fact that this is seen by most as an average at best film. This certainly is not an awful film, just not as good as some might make this out to be. Decide for yourself.