The Geek (1961) from Tuna

You probably remember that Scoopy recently did Godmonster of Indian Flats, and pronounced it seriously bizarre. After the shock of that film, he neglected the special features, which include 4 shorts, two of which are far stranger than the feature. In "You Cannot Fart at Love," a gospel singer sings an intro, then a small band in tux begins to play, then a man  starts singing You Cannot Fart at Love. Remember the June Taylor dancers that led off the Jackie Gleason show? They have dancers doing the same sort of routine while this man is singing in an operatic voice. Everyone in the control booth is getting ripped the whole time. I don't even want to speculate on how someone wrote this dementia.
The other short is about 3 couples who go off on a hike in the woods and encounter a Sasquatch, whom they call the Geek.  


see the main commentary

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.78:1

  • various other oddball shorts and exploitation art, plus two movies called "The Girl and the Geek", and "The Godmonster of Indian Flats"

It is a guy in a head mask, a strange dark shirt, baggy black pants, and his Willie hanging out. One of the girls tries to make friends, and Geek strips her, then does it to her doggy style, after which he throws the three guys to the ground repeatedly until they get tired of getting up, then walks off into the sunset. There were no credits in the film, but IMDB identifies a Lynn Holmes as in the cast, and she has other credits that indicate to me she was a porn actress.

If anyone can confirm that it is her, let me know. At any rate, this girl shows bush, breasts, and buns. This is seriously twisted material, and explains how Something Weird video got its name. If the aim of film is entertainment, then this was a success, as I  was entertained. I doubt of 1 in 20 is as twisted as I am, however.  

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: three stars. Ebert 3/4, Berardinelli 3/4, Apollo 77.

  • Rotten Tomatoes summary. Eight articles on file

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 6.6 
  • With their dollars ... it wasn't a smash, hit, but it took in $21 million domestic on a $13 million budget. It maxed out at just less than 2000 screens. It was really kind of an underperformer when you consider the positive reception from critics and moviegoers.
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, I say F, but in the best possible way.

Return to the Movie House home page