VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

gorepump Going into this, I guess I was expecting "Human Experiments" to be a little more of a 'sleazy' WIP exploiter, but it turned out to be more along the lines of a standard horror/thriller flick. Could've still been fine but unfortunately it wasn't...Passing through a hick sh*thole town, a struggling singer winds up in a car wreck and, while searching for a phone to call for help, comes across the grisly remains of a murdered family that she is subsequently blamed for and sentenced to life. While locked away in a prison/loony bin, she comes to find that some suspicious sh*t is going on with the resident head-shrinker who happens to be conducting experiments on the female inmates' psyches as a way to rehabilitate/brainwash them.There's really nothing "graphic" or interesting to speak of as to this movie. It's slow, shoddily written, contains a few off-screen deaths and an extremely anticlimactic ending. Nudity and sexual material is also drastically minimal. In all, "Human Experiments" seemed like a film with a premise that those involved had no idea how to properly execute. It fails as a horror flick and DEFINITELY fails as a WIP movie. Check out "Ilsa" "Sadomania" or "Last Orgy of the Third Reich" instead.More horror/exploitation reviews at http://swinesewage.blogspot.com/

Red-Barracuda Anyone who has waded through the infamous video nasty list will no doubt come to the conclusion that an alarming number of the films really have little to no shock content whatsoever. Human Experiments is a perfect example of this. It's really extremely difficult working out what exactly it was that the British censors objected to here. Maybe they just chucked every woman in prison flick onto the list irrespective of substance? Hard to say but there truly is no troubling content in this film. And that is a real shame because there isn't an awful lot in this film of any real interest. Its video nasty status is clearly its only real selling point so you may feel a little short changed with this one.Its story has a female country and western singer wrongly accused of slaughtering a family and sent to a correctional facility where she is subjected to experimental aversion therapy techniques.It starts quite well but once we reach the prison things start to become really quite uneventful. For a woman in prison flick there is a very low level of sexploitation content. The 'human experiments' of the title are somewhat underwhelming to say the least. The main shock scene is certainly the part where the heroine is covered in insects and spiders. I personally found that somewhat disturbing so fair enough on that score. This scene comes late in the movie and it does have to be said that in the latter 20 minutes or so things do pick up a bit. Better late than never I suppose. It ends with a strange and senseless ending. In the final analysis, this isn't very good but it's offbeat enough to bring it up to the level of mediocre.

Paul Andrews The things I sit through in the name of film reviewing so other people may not have to, Damn I'm a real masochist! This obscure piece of crap is a good case in point. It starts out with self employed singer Rachel Foster (Linda Hayes) driving along a desert road in the middle of nowhere, she drives past a sign that says 'Putnam County Elevation 4,250', she pulls up along side a bar and introduces herself to the owner Mat Tibbs (Aldo Ray). The next thing we see is Rachel singing (badly) and performing to a bunch of redneck looking guys in cowboy hats. After this less than thrilling opening, and after she gets ripped off by Tibbs, she's back on the road again. While distracted behind the wheel a girl (Theodora Tate) runs out in front of her car and Rachel hits her. She veers off the road and goes back to try and help her but Rachel can't see the girl as she has been thrown into some shrubbery by the roadside. Rachel notices a house and heads towards it in the hope of finding help. Rachel knocks the door but no one answers and since the door is open anyway she decides to just go in. Inside she discovers three members of the Lewis family, the Father (James O'Connell) his wife (Rebecca Bohanon) and their son (Timothy Coyle) brutally murdered by the fifth member Darell (Robert Porter). She fears for her life and arms herself with a shotgun from a nearby rack and proceeds to check the house. She finds Darell and in self defence shoots him which puts him in a coma from which his doctors say he will never regain consciousness. There goes her alibi. She runs from the house and is arrested by the local Sheriff (Jackie Coogan). In court Rachel doesn't have a leg to stand on and is found guilty of first degree murder. She is sentenced to life in the Gates Correctional Facility. The psychiatrist who works at the prison, Dr. Kline (Geoffery Lewis) takes an interest in Rachel and singles her out for some unusual forms of 'treatment'. Warden Webber (Mercedes Shirley) is a bit uneasy with Dr. Kline's methods but goes along with it and helps him cover any potential problems up from the outside authorities. Will I be able to stay awake to watch this crap to the end? Will Rachel be able to survive Dr. Kline's bizarre therapy? Personally speaking I didn't care in the slightest but someone out there might I suppose, does seem unlikely though. Co-produced and directed by Gregory Goodell I thought this film sucked. It has absolutely nothing to recommend it. It's exploitation elements are virtually non-existent, there's a brief masturbation scene, a very short shower scene and one or two extremely quick glimpses of female nudity but nowhere near enough for this type of film. The film also features a scene where a room fills up with live insects and bugs that crawl all over Rachel, there doesn't seem to be any reason for this but what the hell, to be fair it almost sparked my interest, hey I said almost! Maybe the filmmakers wanted to create a serious study of prison life from the perspective of a wrongly accused woman (Ha! right sure they did!), well if they did they failed miserably in this aspect of the film too. I'm not sure what the script by Richard Rothstein was aiming for, as I've already mentioned it works as neither exploitation or as a more serious thought provoking film. It just sucks all round. The ending doesn't make any sense either. The film appears to be shot in a real prison and for that reason it actually looks OK, acting isn't as bad as it perhaps could have been but it still ain't great. John Travoltas sister Ellen Travolta has a smallish role as an inmate Rachel befriends nicknamed 'Mover' so called because she gets things done, apparently anyway. The music is terrible as well, especially when Rachel 'sings' and there is another awful musical number when a band of talentless hacks perform at the prison to the inmates. I really don't know the type of film watching person who would get anything out of this lame excuse for a film, I certainly didn't. Recommended to insomniacs and masochists only, everyone else steer well clear!

Greensleeves ****Possible Spoilers****This is a step up from this producers previous efforts and although this film begins well it doesn't follow through. Linda Haynes is excellent as a singer who travels from town to town playing one night gigs as a singer/songwriter. She rebuffs advances from the local bar-owner and he responds by paying her short of the money agreed. As his brother is the town sheriff she finds she is in no position to argue. Driving away the next day she swerves to avoid someone who runs out in front of her car - although it would have helped if she had not been trying to write sheet music while driving! She gets out of the car and looks for the casualty but can't see anyone so she wanders up to a nearby house to use the phone and this is where she gets into really big trouble because she walks into the middle of a massacre. Up until now the film has been suspenseful and the characters interesting but after a quick voice over narration we find Linda committed to life imprisonment in a women's prison. This is where credibility and interest end however as the prison is presided over by a Warden and Psycho - psychiatrist who are developing new methods of rehabilitation by driving inmates out of their mind and reverting them back to their childhood so they can be brought up as nice, decent people instead of criminals. The whole scenario then becomes ludicrous and unbelievable and more's the pity after such a good beginning. There are a couple of scenes which will shock you but not in a bloody or violent way and both are in the first part of the movie. You may find the scenes with the bugs unpleasant in the second half of the film although the photography is so dark it's difficult to see them properly anyway. Linda Haynes is memorable in this role, she is convincing mainly because as a singer she is only average and she doesn't have the prettiest looks which is exactly what this role demands. Her acting is believable and she does have a beautiful body which the film makers exploit in a couple of scenes although the movie veers towards their previous hardcore efforts with an unnecessary (but thankfully curtailed) masturbation scene.