R0b0tNinja 2 very attractive women hitch-hike with a guy who is delivering a bus across the country. One of these women is very easy going hippy and the other is a 'thoughtful' hippy.As they travel they become stuck in a swamp. This leads to multiple scenes of love making or hippy dippy dancing in trees. The thoughtful hippy has religious visions. An attempted rape and multiple sex scenes later the films ends very disappointingly.This films has a lack of substance. An hour and twenty minutes of nonsense and sex scenes. The religious overtones really just presents a hippy thought and nothing comes of it.Really disappointed in this film.

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.

Uriah43 While driving a mobile home from Miami to Tallahassee a young man by the name of "Chuck" (Alan Long) stops to offer a ride to two female hippies by the name of "Carol" (Jill Senter) and "Maureen" (Gini Eastwood). Of the two, Carol is more free-spirited while Maureen is introverted and involved in the occult. Because of this, Maureen gets bad vibes and advises Carol that traveling with Chuck is dangerous. But Carol manages to persuade Maureen to accept the invitation all the same. Sure enough, they end up stuck in a swamp. From this point on the viewer is shown a series of flashbacks, hallucinations and visions from all three characters which eventually ends in the same bizarre manner in which they began. At any rate, rather than disclosing anything more I will just say that this was a low-budget exploitation film that leaves quite a bit to the imagination. Obviously, it was intended to be somewhat artistic and it succeeds to a certain degree. Unfortunately,some of the scenarios should have offered more clues to their overall symbolism. For example, in one scene there is a clown with balloons who at first amuses Maureen and when he takes off the mask terrifies her. But who or what the clown represents isn't made clear and the viewers are apparently forced to come up with the answers on their own. The ending is also something of a puzzle. Because of this the entire film suffers in translation and I rate it as below average.

MisterWhiplash Being a drive-in flick is something that carries as much plot as an empty garbage can, something light and crude enough so that the boy watching with the girl in the car can be distracted enough to work his way up just a little more up her skirt. Certainly the atmosphere is encouraging: it's about two hippies who hitchhike and get picked up by another hippie driving a van to Talahassee (as we only know cause of the "plot device" of the guy-hippie's boss repeatedly calling on the mobile-phone) and then he gets somewhat intentionally stuck in the swamp. The rest of the movie contains flashbacks and sex scenes, and some moments where "dialog" takes place- in quotes for the fact that most of it is incredulous stuff that only passes once or twice as real conversation or thought.Maybe I'm a little too hard on this though; Pick-up is, actually, a surprisingly engaging soft-core hippie-spoliation picture. A lot of it can be attributable to the director/photographer Bernard Hirschhenson, who took a look at the script and the producers and probably said, "Fine, I'll do it, but..." and the but turned into a quasi-documentary on the steamy, dark and nature-full quarters of the Florida swamps. Matter of fact, Florida is a kind of character here- in the Terence Malick kind of way- this in spite the fact that the director sometimes goes to lengths to exploit the locations as much as the copulating actors. In many of these scenes- including the first one when Chuck and, uh, the girl who's more happy-go-lucky and sexually liberated walk away from the mobile and just walk in a drug-fueled daze in the swamp- the camera takes on a quality that almost, just almost, makes it captivating.But then the "plot" has to come back into play, which is close to non-existent except for the whole facet of tarot cards and astrology and sexual abuse working its way into one of the female characters (the one with the dark hair and glazed look, Carol I think), and it starts to really get dull fast. How dull is accentuated by what is at first interesting in that Zardoz kind of manner and then devolves into the bad film-school thing of "depth" coming from an alter and religious and political symbolism (yes, political, there's an excruciating scene where a gay senator comes to call at the bus to get votes), and it reminded me of the "film" being directed by Howard Stern when he was at college in Private Parts.So much of this is so dumb and going-nowhere storytelling and plodding around I should say it's a bad movie... and yet I can't really. I didn't want to turn it off because of something that could happen, or might happen with these freaky-deaky hippies (the women, I might add, quite the striking-looking types), and the cinematography is far beyond the call of anything else of its kind. Maybe not Russ Meyer, but it'll do. And, hell help me, there's some moments of real trashy fun amid the muck of 'whatever/sex/drugs'-ness on the whole.