Really Surprised!

Dreadfully Boring

Don't listen to the negative reviews

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

BIG BAD MAMA is an outrageously cheesy 1930s-era crime comedy from producer Roger Corman; think of it as an over-the-top riff on BONNIE & CLYDE and you'll be right. The slick, speedy storyline involves Angie Dickinson as the titular character, a machine gun-toting criminal who, along with her teenage daughters, wreaks havoc throughout rural Texas. Other notable additions to the cast include Dick Miller as a dedicated lawman, Tom Skerritt as a wildman, and the great William Shatner as a shady character who falls in with the outlaws. The film is very much an exploitation picture, with a simple plot, lots of action and movement, and plenty of nudity from the female cast members. It builds up to an insanely violent climax that attempts to go one better than BONNIE & CLYDE and succeeds admirably.

I met director Steve Carver when he came to town to shoot "Lone Wolf McQuade," and I'm something of a fan, but even with screenwriter Bill Norton aboard, this lacks the wit and cool characters that enliven his Chuck Norris movies or even "Steel." Dialog is particularly lacking, in some scenes even leaving Tom Skerritt with nothing to do but mutter incoherently, or a game Shatner mugging as if he's about to say something but either gets cut off or thinks better of it. The two actors do their best, Skerritt all steely-eyed intensity and Shatner oozing lily-livered Southern charm, as do Royal Dano as a flustered preacher and a shockingly young-looking Noble Willingham as a lecherous bootlegging "uncle." As for the actresses, they certainly deliver the goods, and frequently, especially Angie Dickinson. Yowzah. If you're worried, Angie gets progressively more naked as the plot moves along. Look close for a young and quickly unadorned Sally Kirkland.Plotwise? Angie, rural 1932-vintage single mom, saddled with two unmanageable daughters (one way too naive and one way too not so), after extricating one daughter from a hasty wedding, dips her toe into crime (bootlegging and DAV-smoker-jacking), then gets mired in it after hooking up with bank robber Skerritt. An encounter with down-and-out Southern gent Shatner seals their fate, as he proves to be their little gang's weakest link. Along the way, much blood, clothing and inhibitions will be shed.Considering the budget and shooting time, the action is boisterous enough but haphazard and disjointed, with a lot of repetitive car chases featuring Dick Miller and a sidekick (representing the entirety of the FBI) in hot pursuit, miraculously always one step behind our anti-heroine and her mob. One shudders to see how many vintage autos run up dirt ramps and flip over. Even if you know that the Hollywood hills don't actually look a lot like East Texas (the geography of where our characters are supposed to be at any moment in the plot isn't always made abundantly clear), the small-town locations and antique cars do an impressive job of keeping the movie in its Depression-era period.Look quickly for second-unit director Paul Bartel as a party guest, following in the footsteps of Francis Coppola in "The Young Racers."

Released in 1974 and not viewed again since I saw it in a local late night theatre back then, I remembered this only as a rather crude B film which provided an enjoyable romp for killing a few hours, but was not intended to leave any lasting memories. I was vastly surprised when I saw it listed on Turner's Classic Movies program recently. A Classic! - what was wrong with my recollections of it.? So I decided to watch it again and find out. As I remembered, it was a well made but essentially very bad film, most of which is in very poor taste and was difficult to justify watching. Nevertheless it proved to be a classic guilty pleasure that I kept remembering and drawing amusement from for a long time afterwards, so I found myself again facing the eternal question to be answered by every movie enthusiast - what constitutes a good movie? Does it have to be educational, enlightening or inspirational? Can't it just be lighthearted fun, perhaps in bad taste, but nevertheless welcomed for providing a little real relaxation after a period of hard work? I have always accepted the latter position, so after re-watching Big Bad Mama I am happy to report that, although it is a movie in rank bad taste which deserves only a low IMDb rating, it provides a hilarious and very enjoyable viewing experience. I am now on the lookout for its successor "Big Bad Mama 2 " which I have never seen.Its failures are largely in content, it makes fun of every serious concern it can look at during a relatively short running time of just over 80 min (ideal for cramming onto an 80 min VCD disk). These are all covered at a cracking pace that leaves viewers with little chance to think seriously about any message. In retrospect I am sure it tackled as many targets as it could possibly cover, but with no objective other than to amuse, certainly with no intention of forcing us to think. Politics, religion, the law, prohibition, misuse of firearms, bootlegging, taxes, burlesque, kidnapping - you name it they were mostly there (although I do not remember any references to race relations, which was probably wise.) Its period was set squarely in the middle of the depression and the location was somewhere in the deep south of the USA where this was biting particularly severely. The pace was such that each sequence tended to end just a tad too soon, so there was no opportunity for any boredom. Its ending was interesting. As Mama with her daughters escaped from their last shoot out, (apparently) with a minor wound to her arm, she suddenly collapsed and passed out. Her implied death tied up loose ends and no doubt pleased advocates of Hayes Code, morality rules, without prohibiting her eventual recovery to participate in a sequel 13 years later. Bravo RC - too many sequels created recently have been spoiled by illegitimately changing the ending of the original film.What more should I say? First I should commend Angie Dickinson who has undertaken an incredible range of roles over almost 50 years. Perhaps none were truly memorable, but I can't remember going home unhappy after seeing any of them. This film earns one star for excellent photography, including some extremely enjoyable shots of many delightful 1930 era vehicles, another for Roger Corman's usual impeccable direction - it is incredible how many different genres of film he has made that deserve this comment, and a third for its very acceptable acting - far above what I remember as the standard I used to expect from B movies, especially those seen in Drive-in theatres. Despite its entertainment value; I found difficulty in justifying another star without ignoring artistic quality, but eventually recognised its outstanding and almost unmatched pacing by awarding a fourth. I must also thank TCM for giving me this chance to see it again, and look forward to doing so next time if they decide to give it another spin. If not - with a bit of searching I might find a DVD still available, or perhaps I should suggest the release of a Blue-ray edition.

Roger Corman reaffirms himself as one of America's coolest directors with the trashy-but-great "Big Bad Mama". It's 1932 Texas, and Wilma McClatchie (Angie Dickinson) has just lost everything. No problem! She and her daughters take to the road and go around robbing banks and messing with society, bilking the system for all that it's worth. Along the way, crook Fred Diller (Tom Skerritt) and gentleman William Baxter (William Shatner) join up with them, while snide lawman Bonney (Dick Miller) chases them. It's like "Bonnie and Clyde" taken to the next level! Maybe this really isn't the sort of movie that could ever get ranked among history's most "important", but it's a thrill every step of the way. And it's always great to see movies poke fun at religious wackos and focus on the important issues of the Depression. This is truly a movie that you won't want to miss.