moonspinner55 An entire movie filmed in split-screen? Well, almost...and it's almost difficult criticizing a low-budget effort which nevertheless clearly demonstrates a filmmaker's ambition and courage. Richard L. Bare, who directed the film from his own screenplay (and also served as co-producer!), is unfortunately too derivative in his approach--and too unskilled a film technician--to pull this gimmick off successfully, and "Wicked, Wicked" leaves itself open for ridicule (it seems like a put-on anyway). At a beach-front hotel in California, an ex-cop-turned-security guard suspects one of the staff to be a killer who preys on single blonde women; meanwhile, his former wife is appearing nightly as the singer in the lounge, and she's decided to start wearing a blonde wig! Tatty-looking farrago financed by M-G-M (!) has a few bits of over-the-top violence but absolutely no suspense. The split-screen is used most often to show what's going on in the foreground, but once in awhile Bare gets imaginative and employs it for subtext (while guest Madeleine Sherwood is telling the electrician about her years in the ballet, the other screen shows us she was really a hoochie-koochie dancer). Though not profound, this is an interesting alternative to the clichéd "flashback" cut, but Bare nearly ruins it with stop-motion effects and other trickery (he may have had a good eye, but he doesn't show enough confidence--either that or he was short on material). Tiffany Bolling's bewigged chanteuse sings the title tune (which must be heard to be believed) while Edd "Kookie" Byrnes plays a lifeguard wanted by the F.B.I. If anything needed punching up it was Bare's screenplay, which could kindly be described as "Wretched, Wretched." *1/2 from ****

ptb-8 Gruesome serial killer schlock from the once mighty MGM before It remembered it had a treasure box of classics to cut up into docos, this is the sort of awful film major studios make today. Sort of SCREAM meets HOTEL (which indeed might be a good idea to a suit in Hollwood right about ...now).....using the dual image or cinemasope cut in half, it rendered the viewer dizzy by reel 2.. .......... ....when the girl in the bikini gets the bread knife in the guts over and over and over and over and over....just like they want you to enjoy today (WOLF CREEK). Maybe Tarantino could remake it on that possibility alone and we can laugh as illiterate critics label it 'cool' and dear Quentin can enjoy putting more imagery of mutilated females on the wide screen. Anyway.....it is all there in 1973 in gory banal grossness. Whoever said it should be DVD reissued with a co feature of NIGHT OF THE LEPUS is right. Stabbings and rabbits. Sounds very Multiplex 2006 to me.

halcyon2000 Wicked, Wicked is unique in that it is shot entirely in DUO-VISION (a gimmick of early 1970's cimena). Brian DePalma used this technique with great success in both Carrie and Phantom of the Paradise. The problem here is that Richard Bare is no Brian DePalma and the story is completely idiotic.the one saving grace of this film is the moment at which the duo-vision becomes "uni-vision" during the climactic moment of the story. You have to see it to appreciate the greatness of that one shot. Perhaps the director came up with that idea and then made a whole story around it?

Stephen-12 I can hardly begin to express what a disgusting, worthless piece of excrement this film is. When you consider how much talent there is in film-making, to know that a major studio (admittedly, on its last legs) funded this garbage makes you want to grab a sharp implement.Why is it so awful? All right (deep breath):1. The split screen. It's distracting. It adds nothing to the narrative. It isn't used to make a point (as Tarantino does in Jackie Brown). It's just there as a selling feature.2. The performances. God help us.3. The script. God continue to help us.4. The story itself. Who the hell thought this would be an original idea?5. The child abuse sequences. So appallingly exploitative, so unworthily sickening, so POINTLESS...I wanted to throw something at the TV.6. The tacky tone. The sexual puns are puerile beyond belief. The Farrelly brothers would never have stooped this low.7. The theme song. Still stuck in my head after about 10 years. GO AWAY!!!!There are plenty of other reasons why this obscenity should be thrown into the Pit of Hell, but I really can't bear to go any further. Every copy of this should be consigned to fire, and everybody involved in it should be taken outside and shot, their bodies burnt, their ashes buried and the whole site concreted over.If this diatribe persuades people to go and see it, it has failed in its mission. Don't ever employ its maker to do anything again, I implore you.The least enjoyable bad film ever made. Can I give it a minus score, please?