The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Introducing: The Deuce


Mike, I know everything youve stated. I read Harrys Death Proof review already. Ive been into these movies for years. I knew that grindhouses played stuff besides low budget exploitation, but thats just not what we’re looking for right now. We’re looking for the lower budget exploitation films. Not Jaws and Christine.

We dont have to turn this into a: “I know more than you” contest. Trust me, I know what youre saying.



Here it is! The only movie in the world where a hair-stylist mows down a couple of bad guys with a chainsaw!

Mr. Johnathan (John Daniels) is the land’s most wanted hair-stylist because the ladies just happen to like other things he does to them aside from making their hair look good (If you know what I mean and I think you do) But along comes a shady secretary (Tanya Boyd) who may or may not be truly in love with Mr. Johnathan. It’s only just a matter of time til some mobsters begin to frequently terrorize the beauty shop. Looks like it’s time for “Black Shampoo” to save the day!

At first, this movie seemed to take the top spot in my guilty pleasures list. But the more I see it, the more it seems to define 70’s exploitation cinema at it’s almost finest. Funky musical score,wild fashions,gratuitous sex/nudity/violence,politically incorrect attitudes and over the top characters. It’s all here.

Probably the only fault I initally had with it was that John Daniels certainly looks the part of the tough guy/stud, but he displays about 2% charisma throughout the whole movie. But then I thought what if someone like Fred Williamson or Jim Brown played the lead character. For this type of movie, it just wouldn’t work. So a fresh face was wisely chosen.

As a blaxploitation flick,midnight movie, Mystery Science Theater movie…It doesn’t matter. Black Shampoo seems to work well on any wild occasion.



(Softcore section)


Released in 1971

Distributed by Boxoffice International Pictures

Directed by William Rotsler

Starring Jason Yukon,Victoria Carver,and Keith Erickson

What we got here is a soft-core porno which follows the adventures of mob enforcer, and the Don’s Godson, Marco Santino (Played by Jason Yukon, who packs a nifty afro and sideburns) Marco’s currently stuck with brothel business and has dreams of moving up in the organization. All the while, he gets it on with the clients and we see the clients get it on with the customers.

That’s all the plot really. Of course, there’s an eventual showdown between Marco and a rival in the end, but the outcome doesn’t really matter 'cause you’ll be bored and won’t care. Might not be hard to believe, but despite alllllll the skin and allllllll the sex, this flick is really tedious. But since this is a fairly early production from Harry Novak which mixes a crime story with sexploitation, I’ll give him a pass. Because things would eventually flow a little bit better in future entries like A SCREAM IN THE STREETS, for instance.

Pin-Up hotties Deborah McGuire and Uschi Digard make appearances.





Released in 1971

Distributed by Cineproduzioni Daunia 70/Hallmark Releasing Corp.

Directed by Fernando Di Leo

Starring Klaus Kinski, Margaret Lee and Rosalba Neri

Actually, the original title is “Cold-Blooded Beast” or “The Beast Who Kills in Cold Blood”. But even those don’t seem like the right titles. “SEX CLINIC SLAUGHTERHOUSE” probably would have been more appropriate.

The movie takes place at a clinic (Not a hotel) for gals who have some personal issues. But since this takes place in movie-land, all the girls resemble gorgeous glamour queens (Even the nurses don’t look too bad!) but wouldn’t you know it, some phantom-maniac is roaming around the clinic killing the girls off one by one…Thanks to the arsenal of medieval weapons found in the building’s basement!

Klaus Kinski’s the star here, but his lackidasical performance here will leave fans disappointed. Apparently, he was to play the part in suspicious manner so that audiences would think he’s the killer. But is he?

Even though the movie has a standard 97-minute running time (Depending on which version you get your hands on) the movie really seemed to breeze by nicely on repeated viewings. Just the whole ludicrous concept and execution works like a charm to a demented degree. Just go into this one leaving your brain miles away and try to have fun with the blood and T&A.


(Put this in GENRE MIX EM UPS)

BLOOD FREAK (Drugsploitation/Slasher)


Released in 1972

Distributed by Something Weird Video

Directed by Brad Grinter

Starring Steve Hawkes

Tagline (Although I don’t think it’s genuine!)

"The world’s only turkey-monster-anti-drug-pro-Jesus gore film!"

The movie opens with a narrator (And humble co-director, Brad Grinter) talking directly to the camera (We’re already off to a good start, right?) giving us the definition of a catalyst…Okay. Then we spring into the movie with the introduction of our biker hero/protoganist/lead guy,Herschell played by Steve Hawkes (Who recieves a starring credit not once, but twice!)

Hersch (Who resembles both Elvis and Wolverine and with a burnt left arm to boot!) runs into a cutie who’s car has broken down off the highway. With no dialogue available, we take it that the gal (Angel’s her name) convinces Hersch to join her at a party that her sister’s attending. To make things short, we got a good sister, Angel, the bible-preaching goodie-two-shoes and Ann, who’s the exact opposite, Sex,Drugs,& Rock’n’Roll! But in the end, it’s Ann who ends up tracking and baiting Hersch for the kill. And while Hersch was reluctant to join in on the weed-smoking party in the previous scene, now all of a sudden, he can’t get enough of both the reefer and Ann!

Welp, since it looks like Hersch is gonna stay in town. Might as well find a job. Enter the turkey ranch! But this is no ordinary turkey ranch! Hersch is soon introduced to two scientists (My favorite guys of the whole movie) who encourage Hersch to be a guinea pig to eat their chemically-induced, cooked turkeys! Oh, and a bonus supply of marijuana too! Can’t say no to that!

So what happens to you when you eat an experimental turkey to go along with your drug addiction?That’s right! You become a maniacal, bloodthirsty Turkey-Man! Complete with a plaster turkey head!

Alright, after that, the movie just becomes “Gobble,Gobble”*SCREAM!SCREAM!"Gobble,Gobble"SCREAM!SCREAM! But boy, if it isn’t a blast. It’s got all the production value of MANOS-THE HANDS OF FATE and all the originality of…God knows what! But what makes it most appealing is that this was all meant to be taken seriously. You’ve got the Christian theme with Angel (Which comes back to try to save the day in the end) and our narrator’s frequent interruptions telling the audience what’s wrong with the world today(Via script that he often looks down and reads from!)

And it all just did NOT work. Both in filmmaking terms,“acting”, and in story, the result ends up being a hilarious,twisted joke that you’ll never forget.

Believe me, it’s a unbelievable 90 minutes of your life. And even though the film’s “twist” in the end might not be satisfactory to some, just check out the final segment when we last see the narrator. What he says and what happens to him is a brilliant exclamation point to one of the greatest treasures in filmed history. You read that right.


LB knows whats up!! He knows exactly what we’re looking for. Just follow his lead kids. :slight_smile:


Mike, I know everything youve stated. I read Harrys Death Proof review already. Ive been into these movies for years. I knew that grindhouses played stuff besides low budget exploitation, but thats just not what we’re looking for right now. We’re looking for the lower budget exploitation films. Not Jaws and Christine.

We dont have to turn this into a: “I know more than you” contest. Trust me, I know what youre saying.


I’m aware.

I posted that for posts like the one above detailing movies judged to not play in grindhouses.

We’re on the same page, or I wouldnt have posted the bit about Christine.

There are other people on this page besides you and I. And you’re not the only one who has to give them information. Maybe on the Deuce, but not on The Forum.

The people on here aren’t your children. If I want to say something to them I can. If you’re going to accuse me of playing a “I know more than you” contest, I’ll just PM them to avoid the dick swinging.


Well, Im not trying to swing my dick at all, Ive tried to be cool and polite to everyone whose been in here whos been cool enough to help out with the site. Bleach suggested a film to me that I didnt feel was quite what I wanted at this time. It doesnt mean I dont know what exploitation films are, what grindhouses are or what kinds of films played there. Its just not the type of film Im looking for right now.

We’re looking for more low budget exploitation right now. Maybe later on we’ll add other films if they fit in.

You can see what we’re going for with the site, I think. Its not that hard to understand.


Anyway, I agree a lot with Pete that you should be able to feel a grindhouse film, which is basically the decisive factor, cause it’s the reason why people love this particular genre. A film won’t get any more atmosphere if I know it’s been played in a grindhouse theatre or not. However, there should be some limiting factors too, let alone the feel.

That’s how I feel about Christine, I feel very much like it’s grindhouse, and I’m surprised that others don’t, but alright, so be it. I really want The Deuce to have the essential quality of being PURE, which means no debateable pictures should be included. So ok, let’s leave Christine alone.


Bleach, I was only 9 when Christine was released. It may have very well played in Grindhouses/Drive Ins with other films, but still I personally dont feel it has that iconic-cult film quality most true Grindhouse films have. Its a great movie though.

When we say “grindhouse” its a certain aspect the films have in pop culture. Its not about if they played in a grindhouse or not.


No need to patronize me, sir.

If you hadn’t said, “That’s not grindhouse in my opinion,” I wouldn’t have responded. It either played in a grindhouse theater, or it’s just a B movie or an exploitation film.

For the record, Slaughter Hotel kicks ass.

I hear you, Bleach. Christine is an exploitation film so it would have played in a grindhouse if they’d been around at the time. That’s why I think to just talk about exploitation films that played the grindhouse circuit ONLY is very limiting.

But that’s not my call.


Thats where we’re getting mixed up, this site really isnt about every film that played in a grindhouse. But I think most people understand the overall concept of the site. I thought they did anyway. Think RR/QTs Grindhouse. Not Harrys All Kinds of Movies Grindhouse. FOR NOW that is. Maybe later we’ll add more mainstream stuff.

No offense intended. Thanks for your film info Mike.


I understand that. It’s about EXPLOITATION films that played in a grindhouse. I don’t think you even understand what I was saying… at all. I was showing some others that other movies played in grindhouses with Harry’s quote, I wasn’t playing, “So says Harry, so shall it be done.” Because he can be off his rocker sometimes too. But what he said there is true. I was trying to extend an outside voice that wasn’t just me droning on. But I find it amusing that you missed the part of Harry’s quote that said that just because other movies played the grindhouse circuit it didn’t necessarily qualify them for being grindhouse movies, simply because of one thing. They weren’t necessarily EXPLOITATION films. They may have been B films, and B films ARE exploitation films if they cross taboo lines or have exploitable elements.


This is why I think it’s much easier to just do it on exploitation films, period. Trying to decipher and fit exploitation films into a grindhouse category is only confusing people.


If I started adding every film that played in a Grindhouse at one time, Id have a regular movie review website. Thats not the idea behind it.

It wasnt confusing to anyone as far as i knew. Everyone adding reviews so far have been pretty much on the money.

Im gonna keep the site how it is. Im not ready for people to start reaaranging it already. Its been open afew days.

I really dont want to do ALL exploitation films. I want to do exploitation films from a certain period when they played in Grindhouses. I dont want to add every straight to video film ever made. Thats where most of todays low budget exploitation goes. Plus the site would be even more endless than it already is.

Also, this is a database for a certain era. Its not going to go past a certain time.

Thats the way I set it up and Im very happy with the way its going.

Mike, if you dont like it, you dont have to be a part of it. I can handle things on my own here I think.


calm down guys.

I think you’re all missing the point here. at no point in time did pete say he’s gonna make a website listing films that played in grindhouses. it’s an exploitation/cultfilm website, no need to start arguments about genre definitions and get on each others nerves. let’s all be friends


Go back and see who said what. If you think Im in the wrong, tell me. I kinda think Mikes being a bit of a know it all.


1. You don’t necessarily have to review them all. There’s a pretty big list on the site so far. Some have reviews and some don’t. No big whup. But you up to a good head start on a large list of exploitation movies.

2. I wasn’t talking about the reviews. I was talking about, “I think this is a grindhouse movie because I get that feeling.” “Is this a grindhouse movie?” “Is that a grindhouse movie?” “That’s not grindhouse in my opinion.”

3. It’s your site, you can do what you want with it. It’s just odd to me, I guess.

All I was doing was replying to posts on a Tarantino fan site forum. If that automatically makes me some kind of correspondent, that’s strange to me.


Well thanks for your thoughts/opinions on the new site. Ill think about what youve said.

New reviews (Thanks LB!)

<LINK_TEXT text=“ … lood_Feast”></LINK_TEXT> (this one cracked me up)

<LINK_TEXT text=“ … hter_Hotel”></LINK_TEXT>


Its really the 60s to early-mid 80s. Anything after 84-85 doesnt qualify.


How about 30’s exploitation movies? I was gonna review Freaks/Reefer madness and I just want to check if you will allow them.

Here’s an thought:

I realize there are tons of Grindhouse movies from 60s-80’s to be reviewed, but why limit the Deuce to mid-80’s cinema?

Why not (maybe in the future) add a section called “The Beyond”, which contains all the later exploitation and B-films that just never happened to be screened at any real Grindhouse cinema.

Yeah I thought it would be cool to have an “Modern Day Exploitaion” page for 85’ and up


<LINK_TEXT text=“ … lood_Feast”></LINK_TEXT> (this one cracked me up)

Glad to have this review on there, but you gotta do a switcheroo with the main title. FREAK not FEAST! (Although a Blood Feast review should get added soon)

How about 30’s exploitation movies? I was gonna review Freaks/Reefer madness and I just want to check if you will allow them.

I was thinking about this too. The earliest Grindhouses got their starts with Drugsploitation,Nudie Cuties, and Sex-Hygiene films. FREAKS and REEFER recieved the midnight-revival treatment, but I don’t know about their history on the Grindhouse circuit (Unless Midnight Theaters are included)


I was thinking about this too. The earliest Grindhouses got their starts with Drugsploitation,Nudie Cuties, and Sex-Hygiene films. FREAKS and REEFER recieved the midnight-revival treatment, but I don’t know about their history on the Grindhouse circuit (Unless Midnight Theaters are included)

From wikipedia: "Soon after the film was shot however, it was purchased by notorious exploitation filmmaker Dwain Esper, who took the liberty of cutting in salacious insert shots and applying the more scandalous title of Reefer Madness, before distributing it on the exploitation circuit"

Reefer Madness Review:

An black and white propaganda film made in 1936, Reefer Madness or better known as Tell your kids was first used either as a teaching tool for parents to help them learn the effects of marihuana or to scare the kids into not smoking the “evil Majihuana” no one is real sure which was first. An director by the name of Dwain Esper who is known for making some of the worst films ever made, recut the movie and retitled it as Reefer Madness.

The film starts out with an principal talking at a school meeting with parents telling them how dangerous this drug is and how the government should stop it then he goes on telling them a story that you could have read in the newspaper. The story starts out about two young high school students(Bill and Jimmy)who are invited to a party by Jack and Mae who happen to be drug dealers. Soon after arriving to the party Bill smokes some mary jane which he thinks is just a regular cigarette. Jack runs out of reefer so he gets Jimmy to drive him since Jack doesn’t have a car. He gives Jimmy something to smoke on while he is in there with his “boss”, when they leave Jimmy by accident runs over a pedestrian but Jack promises not to rat on him. After having sex with Blanche Bill attacks Ralph after thinking that Mary strips for Ralph then Jack stops the fight by hitting Bill with the butt of the gun but the gun goes off and kills mary. They frame Bill for Mary’s killing and he sentenced for prison. After smoking a joint Ralph thinks Jack is trying to kill him so when Jack shows up he beats him to death. The police arrest Ralph,Blanche, and Mae. Blanche explains that Bill is innocent and he is soon after released. Instead of waiting to testify against Ralph she jumps out the window and kills herself. And the Principal returns talking to the parants then points to the camera and says "Dont let this happen to you!"

Even after the film was recut by Dwain Esper it was still kind of unknown but around the 70’s it became a big hit when it was found by founder of Norml(ational Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) Keith Stroup which he bought the print for $297 dollars and since then it has been a big hit for potsmokers plus college students around the world. Reefer Madness was meant to be shocking and to scare you but now its not scary its hilarious.

Tagline: See youthful marijuana victims - what actually happens

Poster: <LINK_TEXT text=“ … adness.jpg”></LINK_TEXT>



Reefer Madness is not exploitation. If it was then it would be Propangandasploitation, but it’s not. :slight_smile: