7cb1d79195 After stopping three crooks from robbing an innocent woman, two dimwits become crime fighters. It starts off seriously enough, with three thugs robbing an innocent young woman at night in the city, but then switches to Vin Saxon and Carolyn Brandt doing a goofy Elvis-like rock &#39;n roll number (very charming though). The next day the thugs are bored. Picking a name at random out of the phone book, they decide to terrorize Carolyn Brandt. After some campy dramatic scenes, she is kidnapped by the goons. They decide to ransom her. After receiving the ransom call, Vin Saxon and the good-natured, but not- to-bright gardener sit around despondent, wondering what to do. &quot;There&#39;s only one thing to do!&quot; exclaims Vin. The two rush off into the next room and become the costumed heroes Rat Pfink and Boo Boo… This is neither a great film, nor an important one. Nevertheless, it is far from the ridiculous movie I was waiting for. It is a spoof, a quite anarchic and experimental spoof, and no one can judge this movie not taking it on consideration in the first place. Acting is bad and the movie is neither amusing nor artistically sophisticate to deserve a high rating. Though, there are some funny moments (the best gig is the way Rat Pfink deals with his black cape) and it is not a bad movie after all. The film can be divided in two - the first half without the masked heroes and the second one with them fighting the gang - and the sudden change from one to the other is quite weird. Indeed, it was not intended since the beginning by producers. Campiness is absolute,is expected by a parody of an already campy franchise (60&#39;s Batman and Robin). A strange hybrid of contemporary movies styles, Rat Pfink a Boo Boo beginsa seemingly straight, very low budget and amateurish crime drama. Cee Dee Beaumont (Carolyn Brandt), girlfriend to rock &#39;n&#39; roll star, Lonnie Lord (Ron Haydock), is being harassed on the telephone by a gang of bored hoodlums. The first half of the film plays like a pulp melodrama, but this is also mixed with some beach party scenes. The whole film is a post-modern concoction of ideas, taken from the popular youth movements of the time. A year previous to the production of the film, an incredibly saccharine and asinine movie was released, that actually began a bizarre - if short-lived - series. Beach Blanket Bingo (1965), has been pilfered for the lame beach party scenes that interject throughout the first half of the film.<br/><br/>After Lonnie&#39;s girlfriend is kidnapped by the previously mentioned gang, he receives a phone call giving the demands for her release. This is where the film changes. It is not a revelatory change. It simply seems that the film maker just didn&#39;t know what to do with the ending. So,per the previous action of pilfering, I can only assume he simply switched the TV on and was introduced to two popular shows that were being aired at the time. Lonnie, along with a character we hardly noticed in the previous half, Titus Twimbly (Titus Moede), step into a cupboard. After a kerfuffle they exit wearing ludicrous outfits, and proclaiming their super-hero pseudonymsRat Pfink and Boo Boo. (As a note, this was the full original title. However, in post production, the titles were messed up leaving the a instead of the and.)<br/><br/>What proceeds is a farcical parade of the eponymous super heroes gliding through the streets on a motorcycle and side car around the streets of Hollywood. This last part plays out like the camp Batman series that clearly influenced it, and the title being adapted from another cartoon TV character, Batfink. With it&#39;s cheap credentials in place, the film still has some amateurish charm. I believe that much of the humour is intentional, and the super hero section has it&#39;s tongue placed firmly in it&#39;s cheek - much like the Batman series that it is riffing on.<br/><br/>The film does deserve it&#39;s 2.9 IMDb rating, but because it is so low budget, I believe it has more to offer that let&#39;s say, for example, Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), which has less to offerit takes itself so seriously, and was made on a budget that could probably alter the third world. Also, with a running time of only 67 minutes, does not waste 3 hours of your life, and is worth it for it&#39;s outrageous acting, preposterous settings, and the more obvious limitations of it&#39;s director, a man who clearly lost his way 40 minutes into the film, resulting in the super hero ending, shoehorned into place.<br/><br/>www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com
ivinhono Admin replied
363 weeks ago