The Godson (1971) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Notice anything unusual about the combination of the title and date?
Normally, hit movies produce porn spin-offs. You know, the "Sperms of Endearment" Syndrome. But The Godson was produced a year BEFORE the Godfather. Do you think Coppola copied it? (Actually, there is a non-conspiratorial explanation. Puzo's best-selling 1969 novel was the inspiration for the title of both movies.)


There is a monumental amount of nudity. Among the naked chicks, the following were identified: Uschi Digart (all, including near-penetration), Lois Mitchell (breasts), Jane Allyson (all), Orita deChadwick (all, including genital close-ups), Marie Arnold (boobs and buns).

Back in the pre-VCR days when there were still drive-ins and soft-core theatrical releases, producers like Harry Novak and Dave Friedman churned out film after film which delivered the goods to the target audience: clear photography, vivid colors, lots of naked women, and something as close to actual sex as possible without showing any penetrated orifices. This Novak film is at or near the top of the exploitation food chain. It has lots of naked women, including an exploitation queen, the mammoth-breasted Uschi Digard. Uschi comes as close to real sex as was possible in these films. She sits on a guy in female-dominant position, and her genitals are seen next to his testicles. Penetration is not seen, but it isn't possible to get any closer without actually showing it.

There's even a sorta interesting plot with some over-the-top Tarantinoesque violence - shocking stuff for 1971! Of course, the acting and special effects are awful, but let's face it, these performers weren't hired for their grasp of Iambic Pentamenter. (Uschi never speaks at all, even though people ask her questions. She just nods or shakes. I guess they wanted to hide her accent.)

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Full neg versions of this film and Below the Belt. The Godson is perfectly restored. Below the Belt is not as good at all. The Godson also comes with a fill length commentary from producer Harry Novak.

  • Several trailers

  • two Uschi Digart shorts (Uschi meeets Dracula, and I , Uschi)

  • Uschi is also topless in two of the trailers

  • plus some bonus stills of exploitation art, photos, and songs from Novak movies

The DVD is an outstanding value, as is typical of products from Something Weird Video:

1. The Godson has been lovingly remastered. It looks brand-new. The remaster is perfect.

2. It also includes full-length reminiscences with Harry Novak.

3. There is a second Novak film on the disk, Below the Belt, which also features Uschi Digard.

4. There are also two shorts on the disk, also featuring Uschi. "I, Uschi" is a self-help video with genital close-ups.

5. There are galleries of artwork, photos and songs from various Novak films.


The Godson (1972) is a Harry Novak production written and directed by Bill Rotsler. Rotsler worked for Harry for about 15 years, and performed just about every task both in front of, and behind the camera. It is no accident that Something Weird was able to present such a clean DVD transfer. Harry Novak started film preservation long before the majors, and has every negative from every film he ever made in a climate controlled room. Of all of the exploitation giants, he had the least trouble of any selling his films throughout the US, and overseas. When asked why, he mentioned that he never made cheaters (not delivering what the advertising promised), shot everything on 35mm Eastman stock, always shot synch sound, did not do any hardcore, and frequently used union players and crew, who would work with him to supplement their income. A shorter answer would be that he made quality exploitation that always delivered. Most of the Something Weird releases feature some sort of commentary, and this is no exception, but I must admit that Novak is not the best of the bunch when it comes to doing commentary.

Uschi Digard was the woman in this film that was already something of a name in B movies, and garnered a huge cult following. Lois Mitchell was a Bill Rotsler discovery, and he and Harry Novak thought she was going to be huge, which explains why she got a credit and was used in the opening titles. IMDB shows no other films for her, although I am pretty sure she worked in other Novak films. Harry has been quoted as saying that there is money in everything, which explains why he is a notorious pack rat. He has literally millions of one-sheets in mint condition from his films, and a huge collection of press kits, lobby cards, etc. He also has most of the props from his films. A big exception is the plant from "Please Don't Eat My Mother," which was stolen.

If I had to criticize this film, I would have preferred just a little more plot. I can't argue, however, with nearly a dozen women, most of them showing all three Bs, and simulated sex including near penetration, all in good light with a bright color palette, and all of this in an excellent DVD transfer.

The Critics Vote

  • no reviews online

The People Vote ...

  • IMDB summary. 2.8 out of 10. These voters apparently thought it was supposed to be a real movie.
The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or even 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. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). 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.

Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, it is a C+. An absolutely superior genre offering. Two movies, two more shorts, galleries, trainlers, and Uschi galore. Tuna says, "This is as good as exploitation/soft-core from the early 70's gets. C+."

Return to the Movie House home page