This movie was so entertaining, hip, witty and competent until the third act, which is not only offensive (by referencing the Tate murders) but doesn't fit in with the rest of the movie at all. It also ruined the best character in the entire film. It was as if Roger Ebert and Russ Meyers just didn't know how to end the movie and went, "Let's just have a bloodbath where (almost everyone) dies. The end."
shareA lot of movies end like that.
Curious?
Did you just watch it?
No, I didn't just watch it. I remembered it now in recalling how, for whatever reason, any movie that has women in distress is declared a "camp classic" (Valley of the Dolls, Mahogany, etc.).
share1970's for ya.
shareSo nearly every horror or thriller movie pretty much would be a camp classic? That type of movie usually has people in distress at some point, male and female.
The whole movie is deliberate, pure camp from start to finish. They keep finding ways to ratchet it up throughout. The plot twist at the end is in that spirit, not meant as some kind of statement on trans people or something.
So lighten up, Francis.
You're the flake that needs to "lighten up." Someone asked me if I had just seen the movie and I said I didn't. I was just remembering other movies like this that get declared as camp. Don't know where you got this nonsense about me saying anything about this being a statement about trans, so get a grip.
You wrote that "any movie" that has a woman in distress is considered a "camp classic". At least during the 70s.
You did say the ending "ruined" the character. I guess I made an assumption there, but the big reveal at the end was that the guy was transgender, IIRC. I thought that must have been what bothered you about the ending. I got the impression you were offended by that. Maybe I was wrong.