'JOE' is similar
same director. both about world war 2 vets dealing with the hippie era. and old guys get high and *beep* a young hippie girl in each film.
shareI haven't seen this yet but this doesn't seem so much an "exploitation flick" as "Joe" was.
In any event, I plan on watching it soon.
Precisely how is JOE an exploitation flick?
shareCooper - Don't get me wrong here, I love "Joe". I love it for a few different reasons. One, Peter Boyle's portrayal of Joe. A bit over the top, but how else can you play it with that dialogue and the plot? Two, it's a bit of a time capsule as well, it portrays the other side of America while we were approaching the end of the Vietnam War. Nixon's so-called Silent Majority. Sure, it's far from a shining portrayal, but let's get to that in a minute. Finally, it's a total romp. Partly because it's so unhinged. It's hard not to get into this movie because it's so damn funny.
But how precisely is it exploitation? It's a lurid, slanted portrayal of hippie youth culture from a conservative point of view in 1970. However, it's also a pretty twisted take of the working class conservative man in the latter half, taking part in all of the things that make hippies so "dirty" and such. Also, it's pretty low budget and straight from the kings of low budget exploitative movies of the 70's and 80's, Cannon Films. It's pretty plain to see this was a cheap and quick cash grab that focused on hippies, drugs and the youth culture of the time. Not that it's not entertaining because I certainly thought it was. "Joe" definitely fits into the exploitation category.
Now.... since we're supposed to be talking about "Save The Tiger", what's everyone's opinion of "Breezy"?