Jarv’s Schlock Vault: Boston Girls

Boston-Girls-cover

Slam Pig! 

I have genuinely come to the conclusion that modern exploitation films tend to be hideous. It is true, though, that almost all exploitation has been awful, with only a few gems standing out from the crowd, but the difference was that the 1970’s films were attempting to overcome limitations imposed on them by budget, talent, time and so forth and there were a few that genuinely transcended their lowly origins. Whereas 21st Century exploitation has none of the limitations the 70’s film makers had to overcome, and instead intentionally makes the films shoddy, grainy and more seriously unpleasant than they had to be. It was with this in mind that I decided to inflict Boston Girls on myself, and I didn’t have a lot in the way of hope for it.

Contains cack handed faux feminism and spoilers below 

I wasn’t a fan of Boston when I went there. Admittedly it was in the 90’s and I managed to start a fight with a Noraid cunt rattling a tin “for the boys” but still, it didn’t exactly rock my world. When you throw in that Boston Girls is a low budget modern exploitation, even the presence of Danny Trejo made me doubt that this film would be even remotely watchable. After the credits finished rolling, I’d seen nothing to change my mind.

Meet our two anti-heroines: Irish descendant Lynne (Shay Astar), and Italian Carmela (Camille Solari- also on writing duty). They’re basically having a rotten time of it, with both their boyfriends cheating on them. After an altercation at Lynne’s boyfriend’s place, they’re arrested by the cops. One of the cops is bent, and the other is a post-burnout junkie. His burnout was caused by witnessing Lynne’s rape on a Merry-go-round, something we get to see far too often, even if it’s disguised. Anyhoo, his partner is a scumbag and proceeds to brutally rape Carmela to teach her a lesson. Unfortunately for him, she gets hold of his taser and boots him into a creek to die.

What the fuck are you lot doing in the pub? Go home and get the dinner on.

What the fuck are you lot doing in the pub? Go home and get the dinner on. Christ. 

Anyhow, our girls go back to the boyfriend’s house for Lynne to murder him and take her top off. Not necessarily in that order. This first killing kickstarts a rampage where they eliminate all enemies on a check list (Kill Bill style). In the meantime, the women of Boston seem to take to the two murderess as cult heroines and we get to see loads of news footage proclaiming them to be fighting the good fight against the evil phalliocracy or some such bollocks. Amongst their victims is Danny Trejo, playing Carmela’s uncle, an ex-ball player who molested her when she was little. Needless to say, they off him after a suitably heart warming, and not at all cack-handed, redemption scene between the old fella and his victim. This, by the by, is the sum extent of the characterisation in this film. They’re basically a pair of angry rape victims on a rampage.

The acting here is a touch ropy. The two girls themselves are OK, and Trejo is solid in his cameo, but the supporting male cast leaves a lot to be desired. Most of the actors here aren’t destined for greater films, if I’m to be brutally honest, as they lack the chops. They don’t really let the side down too badly, but I’d be genuinely surprised to find out that most of them were professional rather than just mates roped in to star in a movie.

Direction from Gabriel Bologna isn’t great either. To be fair, he’s clearly got fuck all money (no CGI blood or gunfire, hurray!) and much of the action takes place in enclosed spaces. When he does get a more extended location than, say, the donut shop, he shows that he’s not afraid of setting the camera back a bit, but these are few and far between. In contrast, much of the “indoor” scenes contains moments that feel overly stagey- contrived and simultaneously claustrophobic.

Don't you just hate when you're having a quiet shit and two nosy bints peek over the top of the cubicle?

Don’t you just hate when you’re having a quiet shit and two nosy bints peek over the top of the cubicle?

There’s an issue with the sound reproduction at the start that thankfully goes away, which is really a sign of the budget. What it feels is, well, raw. There’s a grindhouse type atmosphere to the film, and while not as crassly exploitative as something like Hobo with a Shotgun, Boston Girls doesn’t seem to be able to transcend its roots. Funnily enough, the film this most reminds me of is the French art-house porno/ exploitation Baise-Moi. Thankfully, it’s far less repugnant than that, and there’s a distinct lack of erect cock on screen.

That isn’t to say that the film is a dead loss. Many of the kills, particularly the oven scene, are entertaining enough, and there’s a verisimilitude to the dialogue (there should be, these are actually Boston Girls) that stands out. Some of the lines, particularly from Astar (also easily the best actress here) raise a chuckle, and I wouldn’t be shocked to see her in other low budget stuff. Particularly given that she’s quite fetching and more than willing to take her top off for the camera.

If I had to pick the thing I like least about this, it's the accents. Horrible.

If I had to pick the thing I like least about this, it’s the accents. Horrible.

Overall, I don’t hate Boston Girls. I’m just not particularly fond of it either. When the final credits rolled I was left with an overwhelming feeling of meh-ness, and the sequel baiting last scene is a damned cheek to be honest. This is never going to get a sequel. Nevertheless, Boston Girls is one of the best of the modern nouveau exploitation films, even if I’m not sure that’s a prize worth winning. It may not come as a huge shock that I don’t recommend this, because it’s just totally and utterly meh.

Boston-Girls-rating

It does win points for not being totally repugnant, though, and I genuinely think there is the germ of an idea here that a better script and a bit more money might have realised.

Until next time,

Jarv.

the vault logo

Tags: , , , , , ,

About Jarv

Workshy cynic, given to posting reams of nonsense on the internet and watching films that have inexplicably got a piss poor reputation.

28 responses to “Jarv’s Schlock Vault: Boston Girls”

  1. Jarv says :

    I am so fucking mindblowingly bored of modern exploitation. This at least wasn’t awful, but really, this is a sorry fucking genre.

    I’ve now seen a hell of a lot of them, and the only one with anything to recommend is the first 20 minutes of Machete. That “Machete Kills” is coming makes me want to shoot a puppy.

  2. meinewebwelt says :

    Reblogged this on meinewebwelt über Fotografie.

  3. Judge Droid says :

    No thanks. I watch enough shit without descending into the abyss of low budget exploitation.

    • Jarv says :

      I wouldn’t bother. This isn’t hideous, just not your cup of tea, and really not entertaining enough to seek out.

      • Judge Droid says :

        For me to willingly watch exploitation type movies, I need a virtual guarantee of hilarity.

      • Jarv says :

        Yup.

        I’ll take the chance on hilarity, and be mildly disappointed if it doesn’t ensue. You won’t bother at all.

      • Judge Droid says :

        One of the big problems I have with them is they always seem to involve rape. Not many movies can recover from a rape scene and still be hilarious. And normally it’s entirely unnecessary. Such as the rape in that stupid action movie where he hides up a 4 foot tree. Forgot what it’s called. A movie like From Dusk Till Dawn used rape just about as well as it can be used in this type of film.

      • Jarv says :

        It’s a problem with the genre. The female revenge movie almost ALWAYS has a rape as the instigator, and usually a particularly vicious one. It’s to justify the sheer excessiveness of the vengeance.

        This, actually, to its immense credit, handles it quite well by disguising it. Nude Nuns handles it inordinately badly.

        In fact, now I think about it, it’s in loads of general revenge/ vigilante films- Death Wish leaping to mind.

      • Judge Droid says :

        The most repulsive, gratuitous, vile, reprehensible rape scene I’ve seen is Last House on the Left. For a category of reasons.

        a) It goes on forever.
        b) The film goes out of it’s way to sexualise the girl earlier in the film.
        c) It’s lingering and voyeuristic. This may have been a conscious decision. Some kind of reasoning that it would make the viewer feel bad for having a perv on the girl earlier in the film or something. If so, it fails. It just makes it seem like the director is getting himself off.
        d) It goes on FOREVER.

      • Jarv says :

        Christ, never watch I spit on your grave then.

        The thing is, though, that a rape sequence in a film should be the following things:

        1) Brief
        2) Fucking repugnant
        3) As hidden as possible

        The idea should be to get the concept across but not show it. You don’t NEED to see it. Show the beating, or whatever, and then pan away as one of them is taking his keks off. Then show the aftermath.

        You can get more mileage out of the beating- you don’t need to see the actress screaming with her top off to get the point to the audience.

      • Judge Droid says :

        That’s why I thought the one in FDTD was well done. It’s essentially conveyed through implication and reaction. Some quick flashes of the aftermath and characters reacting.

      • Judge Droid says :

        Absolutely, positively no interest in I Spit on Your Grave.

      • Jarv says :

        Can’t say I blame you.

        The one in FDTD isn’t on camera at all. It’s “sit next to me” then Clooney comes back to a bloodbath and slaps Banana head around a bit. Idea across without us having to see it.

        the one in Deadly Prey is utterly gratuitous but mostly off camera as well, thankfully.

      • Jarv says :

        Which reminds me, the black geezer from FDTD is in that New Barbarians stupidity. He’s really funny in it.

      • Judge Droid says :

        New Barbarians? Never heard of it.

      • Judge Droid says :

        The thing about the one in Deadly Prey (or Guy up a 4 foot tree, as I like to call it) is that it’s totally unnecessary as well. They’ve already kidnapped the girl, hence pissing him off. He doesn’t know she’s been raped. And when he finds her she’s been murdered, so he’s super pissed. The rape does nothing to motivate him further, and is therefore entirely pointless.

      • Jarv says :

        Yes. I agree. It’s needless. I was only saying that at least it’s off camera.

      • Judge Droid says :

        Oh, I know. I was just ranting.

      • Jarv says :

        That one is really odd, actually. I’d like to know why it’s in the film at all.

        It doesn’t make sense and adds nothing. I suppose, at a push, it’s to make the evil general even more of a scumbag, but that’s already fairly well established.

  4. Xiphos0311 says :

    there’s a distinct lack of erect cock on screen.

    Winner winner chicken dinner!

    Every movie not shot in Chatsworth should always strive for this.

  5. Xiphos0311 says :

    I think the main issues with modern “exploitation” films whether its from a bunch of nobodies or Cokey Hackentino is that they are essentially lifeless copies of the original style but with about a billion percent better everything. They are really pale imitations that lack any spark since everything “bad” about the originals was organic to them and on modern version they are cynically grafted on to the product, It’s tracing and everybody who does is a fucking tracer.

  6. tombando says :

    Ohhh then Beaks is gonna LOVE this one. He must be a fan of last house on the left, too. Orig or remake?

  7. Continentalop says :

    I think I recommended it before, but you should give 1990’s STREETS a shot. That might be one of the last exploitation movies that was halfway good and that seemed to try.

  8. Continentalop says :

    And I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE is fucking repugnant.

  9. ThereWolf says :

    “… but the difference was that the 1970′s films were attempting to overcome limitations imposed on them by budget, talent, time and so forth and there were a few that genuinely transcended their lowly origins. Whereas 21st Century exploitation has none of the limitations the 70′s film makers had to overcome, and instead intentionally makes the films shoddy, grainy and more seriously unpleasant than they had to be…”

    Bang on. It’s what winds me up about these modern imitators.

    • Jarv says :

      It also, weirdly, wound me up when everyone was wanking over The Artist.

      Why make a silent film if YOU DON’T FUCKING HAVE TO.

      • ThereWolf says :

        See, I’ve got nothing against a film maker setting out to make a silent film today – good luck and all that but a general audience isn’t gonna go for it. I haven’t seen The Artist yet but I’m guessing it won’t live up to the wanking. I won’t blame the director for that though…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: