I was surprised to see just how awful this movie was after all the buzz: "ultra-violent," "raunchy," "lots of booty," "savage," and many more superlatives are used to describe "Faster Pussycat." In reality it's dumb, dull, and docile.
Yes, there are some buxom-y ladies (but no nudity--not even ni---ple-bumps, and no sex, etc.), and some people do die--or I guess they do, as there's almost no blood when it happens (even after a "brutal" stabbing--and we have to watch that from behind the stabber so nothing is seen. The victim falls bloodless to the ground, but I guess there's a little redness on the knife?).
I think Faster Pussycat might really have been meant as a straight comedy instead of an exploitation thriller; the "fight" scenes are laughable (such as a large woman "karate-chopping" a guy hard enough to give him a slight massage--but it kills him anyway), and the dialogue is inane.
The story is slight, the scenery is humdrum (arid landscape for most of it) and the acting is horrible. It's not bad enough to rise to a "good, bad" movie, and it's not good enough for a cult classic. I have no idea why this thing even rates a look. Frankly I was shocked to find the lowest stars this movie gets--besides my rating--is like only four or five.
I'm giving this tripe a "2" just because it has some notoriety. My advice . . . don't see it, and above all don't pull this out for you and all your friends to enjoy--they won't.
Yes, there are some buxom-y ladies (but no nudity--not even ni---ple-bumps, and no sex, etc.), and some people do die--or I guess they do, as there's almost no blood when it happens (even after a "brutal" stabbing--and we have to watch that from behind the stabber so nothing is seen. The victim falls bloodless to the ground, but I guess there's a little redness on the knife?).
I think Faster Pussycat might really have been meant as a straight comedy instead of an exploitation thriller; the "fight" scenes are laughable (such as a large woman "karate-chopping" a guy hard enough to give him a slight massage--but it kills him anyway), and the dialogue is inane.
The story is slight, the scenery is humdrum (arid landscape for most of it) and the acting is horrible. It's not bad enough to rise to a "good, bad" movie, and it's not good enough for a cult classic. I have no idea why this thing even rates a look. Frankly I was shocked to find the lowest stars this movie gets--besides my rating--is like only four or five.
I'm giving this tripe a "2" just because it has some notoriety. My advice . . . don't see it, and above all don't pull this out for you and all your friends to enjoy--they won't.