Stanley (1972)

You won't be disappointed!

An Exercise In Nonsense

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This one is about a Native American Vietnam vet who is suffering from post-traumatic stress. He lives alone in the middle of the Florida Everglades with a collection of pet snakes. Soon, he and his favoured pet Stanley start biting back at local undesirables who have wronged him.Stanley is another product from b-movie producers Crown International Pictures. It's one of those films from the period that focuses on the horror of animals attacking people, although admittedly in this case it's more a case of a disturbed human actively encouraging his creatures to attack. Whatever the case, it's the snakes which are the main draw here with plenty of interesting footage throughout; although be warned that there is one scene where it looked to me at least like a snake was battered to death off the floor by our protagonist, while on another occasion we are treated to a snake slowly eating a mouse which wasn't exactly very pleasant. Yet, despite these shock scenes, this is not really the scariest of films unless, or course, you have a phobia of snakes, in which case I'm sure it'll be unbearable.It's not a bad film, although it's too long for what it is, clocking in at over 100 minutes. Consequently, it drags a bit in places. If it wasn't for this it would be more effective for sure. The central idea is distinctive enough to be memorable though and it does have occasional bizarre sequences such as a strip-tease act where the climax has the woman biting the head off a snake! Then there is Alex Rocco's character's demise in a swimming pool, which is to say the least memorably hilarious. On the whole, not a bad film; almost good in fact but it just falls short.

Tim Ochopee (Chris Robinson), an embittered Vietnam veteran of Native American descent, retreats from society into the Florida Everglades and becomes inseparable companions with a pet rattlesnake (Stanley)... a pet he teaches to kill on command.A happy light rock soundtrack about saving trees opens the film, giving it a hippie nature vibe that is hard to reconcile with the actual picture (though, I guess, in some ways it's a pro-snake and anti-hunting film).At 106 minutes, it runs a bit long, but is oddly enjoyable. That's 106 minutes on the Mill Creek disc. From what I hear, the BCI disc is only 96 minutes and some versions are only 92. I cannot tell you what is cut on each one.Gloria the dancer (Marcie Knight) says, "any kind of love is better than any kind of hate", echoing the Indian warning that Tim's hatred is a cancer on his soul. I think that must be the theme, though it's really hard to say for sure.I suppose this film could be scary if you're terrified of snakes, but they aren't really presented in a scary manner. The acting is good, besides over-acting Susie Thomkins (Susan Carroll) ruining an otherwise talented cast. Oh, and the drunk guy in the burlesque house provided the ten seconds of comic relief I needed.This film isn't terrible. In fact, I found myself staring at the screen quite a bit. I suspect it would be a good flick for a small group of friends and some beers, maybe Milwaukee's Best Ice.

Stanley (1972) 1/2 (out of 4)Tim (Chris Robinson) is a Seminole Indian just returning from Vietnam. Due to all the racist people in town, Tim spends most of his time out in the everglades where he soon starts to befriend rattlesnakes and one in particular named Stanley. The snakes see Tim as a friend in a world where people are out to kill them for their skins. With the growing tension of racists out there, Tim soon starts to get mad and sends his snakes out for revenge.Director William Grefe is probably best known for his low budget shocker Death Curse of Tartu, which, while incredibly bad, was still mildly entertaining. I must also admit that I'm terrified of snakes so that film added a bit of charm because I was squirming in my seat. Stanley however is a horrid movie on all levels that is so incredibly stupid that I kept wishing one of the snakes would bite me.There's no doubt this is a rip off of Willard only this time using snakes. The only somewhat entertaining moment occurs when Tim and Stanley celebrate the snake becoming a father. This is a rather cute and touching scene but everything else can be flushed down the toilet. The acting is horrible as is the direction, which is all over the place and at times the director seems to forget what the film is about. There are a few laughs to be bad at the badness but not enough for me to enjoy it.

Partial spoilers. I just saw it again yesterday, even though I've known it on and off for a long while. Even though I've only ever read one or two reviews of it, I've always been able to hear "Willard rip-off!" as the usual song about this movie. There's probably no way to convince anyone who thinks so, but it ISN'T. (Even though I'm sure Willard was responsible for Stanley being made in the first place, but that isn't the same thing.) And even though the endings are similar - you can probably see that from a mile away - this one handles the idea in its own pretty clever way. Chris Robinson - long before he uttered the famous and infamous words, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV," though he was already well-known - manages to be really believable as the likable main character, who's slowly coming apart, but believable in a completely different way from Bruce Davison as Willard. And of course, "Stanley" - whether you love or hate them - is a genuine "animals strike back" story, which Willard wasn't trying to be in most ways, of course. Except that, like that character, Tim is also killing a lot of PERSONAL enemies, but it's still a case of him vs. the poachers, until the end, of course. And Alex Rocco as a loudmouthed semi-comical villain (think Moe Greene in The Godfather) is something most people either LOVE or HATE, and for me, it's always the former.