Walk the Angry Beach

If you like old campy sexy sci-fi, this is a must see! Rue McClanahan is best. loved it!

It's no wonder Rue McClanahan usually leaves this little number off of her official resume. Worse than the worst cinematic trainwrecks, Hollywood After Dark is a messterpiece of a movie. The only word that can really, truly describe this film is "bad." Plain and simple. I did not expect an Oscar-worthy work of art, but this defied even my lowest of expectations. Everything about Hollywood After Dark is absolutely awful, from the editing (or lack thereof), plot (what plot?) and cinematography to the lighting and music (which is quite annoying and blares loudly throughout the entire seventy-four minute film). Labeled as a sleazy exploiter, the only thing sleazy about this movie is some awful burlesque dancing, which I suppose was considered rather raunchy when Hollywood After Dark was made in 1961. As for Rue's performance- considering what she was given to work with, it really was not bad. Not an award-winning performance by any means but her's was by far the most promising in the entire film. All in all, Hollywood After Dark is likely one of the worst films I've ever seen. I think the best way to sum it up is just to say that Mystery Science Theater 3000 would have had a field day.

Walk the Angry Beach (1968)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Sandy (Rue McClanahan) is a woman working as a stripper but she has much bigger plans as she is trying to get some acting jobs and make it in Hollywood. She ends up meeting Tony who promises her a lot of things but he's got his mind set on a robbery.

WALK THE ANGRY BEACH comes from director John Hayes who will probably be best remembered for his strange picture GRAVE OF THE VAMPIRE. Earlier in his career he made a few films with McClanahan who of course would later become famous for her role on The Golden Girls. This film, also known as Hollywood AFTER DARK, isn't anything special but it does contain a few mildly entertaining moments.

I think the worst thing with the picture are the various scenes with the strippers that appeared to be thrown in sometime after the movie was first made to try and spice it up a bit. These scenes basically have a variety of women doing dances around the camera and it adds very little to the film. It certainly takes away from the central story and helps drag the film out some more. The running time is only 68-minutes so these scenes were probably added to make the time longer.

For the most part McClanahan is decent enough in her role as is Tony Vorno as the man in her life. There's a scene with a bit of nudity in it but I'm going to guess that it wasn't McClanahan due to us never actually seeing her face. Fans of hers or the director might want to check this out but others can stay clear of it.

You don't have to know why Rue McClanahan left this off her resume, the film is quite tame in comparisons to films today. There is nudity even by their standards with the striptease. By today's comparison, the film is quite tame. Hollywood is seedy with strippers and robberies. Rue steals the film as Sandy. Tony Vorno played her boyfriend. The film is a low budget obviously. It's entertaining to see at least once.!

You have to have lived in the era. This is as raunchy and daring as you could have gotten in 1961 at a public cinema in the U. S. These movies were made for guys to attend the theater and see topless women and gyrating hips. This is the Times Square type of movie before censorship was lifted about 9 years or so later, when you could show graphic sex or soft porn sex in the movies. Before that, you could only see those films on your projector at home as underground stag films. This film tried to be a cut above the usual exploitation film by having a plot with a message (oddly, showing the sadness and disappointment of life as a stripper) but instead it is just grade z and laughable. I am sure Rue later wished that she could buy up every copy of these and burn them, but unfortunately for her she couldn't.