Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

JohnHowardReid A way under-rated movie, if ever there was one. I found it so exciting and terrifyingly suspenseful, that I watched it twice! The demented killer would have to be one of the ugliest and most terrifying ever! And the rest of the players - even the little girl - give outstandingly realistic performances. I even liked the musical numbers as they were not only very 1960s in style and presentation, as well as nice and jumpy and pleasing in themselves, but this nightclub scene allowed us to settle in with the very realistic characters (notice how well dressed the singers and the band and the background dancers were - not sloppy like today's so- called entertainers) and absorb their backgrounds, their hopes, their dreams. All the villains - not only the psycho - were both terrifying and realistic. And the climax in the snow is a real tour-de-force, if ever there was one! It had me sitting on the edge of my seat!

bonnierae I'm Tacey Robbins' cousin, but that isn't the reason I'm giving this movie the highest rating I can. It compares very favorably to Drive-In type movies of the same era, and was filmed on about one-tenth the budget. It's fun to watch on a number of levels: A great look at mid-1960's culture, a pretty good thriller-type story line, and Tacey Robbins' great voice. And she's pretty easy on the eyes, too! People interested in seeing this movie should be aware that John Carradine does not appear in it. Bits and pieces of "Psycho-A-Go-Go" were cannibalized over the years and randomly spliced into several other movies. This film was, in fact, lost completely until the company Troma took the trouble to edit it back to what it looked like when originally released in 1965.

MartinHafer Al Adamson has to be one of the worst directors in film history. However, like Hershell Gordon Lewis (another dreadful director and the man who made the cult classic TWO THOUSAND MANIACS), it just proves that even an incompetent boob at the helm can still get lucky once in a while. I've seen many Adamson films and was absolutely shocked that PSYCHO A GO-GO (probably one of the poorest named films of all time) was a pretty decent film--especially since it had a budget of only about $89. This is nothing like his long string of ultra-shlocky horror films he made later in the 60s and into the 70s--these films, believe it or not, are probably WORSE than the Ed Wood films (I kid you not--this is possible). If you don't believe me, try watching his HORROR OF THE BLOOD MONSTERS or Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN. To quote Colonel Kurtz, "...the horror".I think that despite having an abysmally low overall rating just over 2.0, the other reviewers did a good job on this film. None of them disliked the film or gave it a bad review--understanding that for the money, it was an awfully watchable film. In particular, I ask you to read the review by 'sol', as it explains the plot very well--so well that my going over it in any detail is irrelevant. Instead, I'll just give a very quick synopsis.A gang of crooks make a daring jewel robbery but the operation goes haywire when one of the victims triggers an alarm. In their haste to escape, one of the gang throws the bag with the loot into a nearby pickup truck. However, when the innocent driver of the truck soon leaves the vicinity, the gang track him down and brutalize him and his family. Of all the crooks, the most evil and menacing is Joe, who takes great delight in murdering innocent people. Will Joe kill the nice wife or the slightly annoying young daughter? Tune in yourself to see.First, there is a lot to like. Joe was a great character and Roy Morton seemed competent playing this role (a rarity in an Adamson film--to have anyone who can act is usually a mistake) and was easy to hate. The music was also excellent, though at times repetitive. It was certainly unusual to hear such a lovely voice (Tacey Robbins) in a low-budget film as well. As for the script, it also wasn't bad and plays a lot like a Film Noir film of the 60s with a little gore and violence added into the mix. In addition, the location filming (especially at the end) was surprisingly and improved the film.As to what was bad, the worst problem was probably the direction, as some of the shots were poorly framed or should have been redone--but Adamson, having the talent of a lemur, just wasn't up to the rigors of directing or spending more than $100 making any film! Smaller problems were acting as well as the presence of the minstrel doll (something that would no doubt offend many today) and the plot holes involving the escape of the mother and daughter. The child, though semi-competent, comes off as a bit whiny--worrying about this stupid doll as a psycho is chasing them! However, this is a minor concern. But a bigger concern is the writing after the two escape. Several times the mother COULD have ended it all (such as just picking up the gun when Joe was fighting with the boxer, running over Joe when he was standing in the road, etc.). Again, however, due to the budget, you can't nitpick too much. Overall, a decent very low budget film and one that has an unfairly low score.

chris miller here's the thing about this movie, and movies of its kind - they have to be judged on a different scale. there's no way anyone should compare a movie like this to "citizen kane" or, to a greater extent, "gone with the wind" because those are epic films with a lot more money backing the project. this isn't even a "b" studio film, it's an indie flick and, therefore, should be judged accordingly. the soundtrack has very little to do with the ebb and flow of the film, the directing and editing are amateurish, but not horrible, the acting is over-the-top in almost every instance (though roy morton has a good performance as a super-sleazy sex-driven criminal) and the color is garish. but all these things create a certain 60s "b-film" aesthetic that you can choose to like or dislike. if you're willing to go along for the ride then this film can provide some entertainment, if you're not then steer clear. while most aspects of the film are just average and add to the b grade aesthetic, the cinematography is noteworthy. considering the source, the cinematography stands out as rather good. unfortunately the dvd transfer puts the film in full frame, but one still gets the impression that the cinematographer knew what he was doing. who is the cinematographer? vilmos zsigmond, winner of an academy award for cinematography for his work on the deer hunter. he also worked on flesh and blood with verhoven, blow out and bonfire of the vanities with depalma, mccabe and mrs. miller with altman, and close encounters with spielberg. as for the story - it's a typical heist gone wrong tale with a nice touch here and there; not half bad. C.