The Beast That Killed Women

1965 "Terror strikes"
3.1| 1h0m| en
Details

Panic and fear strike the hearts of the terrorised sun-kissed nudist girls of a once peaceful nudist resort in sun-bleached Miami, when a mysterious, yet menacing intruder manages to find his way in the camp.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Also starring Barry Mahon

Reviews

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.
BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.
Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
earthncharacters First of all, I was actually able to watch the full thing without turning it off or pausing it, which is good, I guess. Anyway, in my own opinion, it was a great film, despite the fact it lacked decent acting and the volume didn't stay consistent.Most of the actors seemed like they could do better if they just acted as they would if cameras weren't rolling. There was one scene which had people clapping, but the claps that could be heard did not match up with the actors hand movements. There was a few bits where children (or something else) can be heard making noise, yet it could be heard outside of a building, and inside at the same volume. Furthermore, some bits didn't have speech and only music and various, seemingly random, noises can be heard.Nevertheless, the plot, albeit not too creative, was half-decent, and it did manage to make it look like these people were actual nudists (some of the actors are nudists, which helped, a lot). The film did a great job at knowing what it was, and what it was doing. It never seemed to be taking itself too seriously, which is what makes it so good. Matter of fact, one character talks about how the 'beast' could be a man in a suit, which it, as we all know, was.All in all, the lack of quality actually makes it an enjoyable film. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, so to speak, but I'd recommend it to anyone who likes B-Movies.
Boba_Fett1138 Some movies just aren't made to impress and to sweep any awards. They are made purely to please a certain audience. And for its certain audience, at its time, this must had been simple a good fun, bad movie, with some nudity to it.It's an sexploitation flick from the '60's but that doesn't mean that it's a very daring or exciting one. Seems that for legal reasons they were not allowed to film people below the waist and when they did they only showed the backside of people. So never any full frontal nudity in this movie, which is strange, since this entire movie is set at a nudist camp.And what a silly nudist camp it is. They are dancing, singing and swimming together and all seem to have a very jolly time. All of the girls are very young and beautiful ones, which is of course not realistic at all, considering what type of people normally attend nudist camps. But beware though of the beast that is lurking in the bushes...no woman is safe from his great strength and extreme cunningness.There is of course very little story to this all and the story that there is, is all real ridicules. It's simply a extremely poorly done movie, with zero production value. Not sure if this was actually a serious attempt to crossover the monster genre with a sexploitation flick. The end result is hard to take serious as one, anyway.It was obviously a very cheap movie. All of the camera-shots are extremely static and mostly consists out of people entering the frame or uttering some lines. Non of the people involved were real actors, at least they did not acted that way. It was simply horrendous. It was also extremely hard to understand what they were saying, which was due to some extreme poor sound quality at times. It was fun though at times to hear the crew talking in the background. An obvious unintentional mistake.But well, you just don't watch a this sort of movie for its innovating, high technical qualities, it's brilliant acting or clever story. You watch it purely to have some fun with and because it's all so bad and extremely silly, you just can't help but to enjoy this movie. It doesn't make it a good movie by any means but it at least makes it a fun one to watch. And luckily it's only just an hour long so you don't feel like you are wasting too much time with it.4/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
lazarillo The "nudie-cutie" is without a doubt one of the campiest genres in the history of American cinema. Prevented by the censors from doing anything stronger, 60's exploitation filmmakers like David Freiedman, Herschel Gordon Lewis, and Barry Mahon resorted to making "nature documentaries"--basically home movies shot at nudist camps (although the actual nudists were usually told to take a hike and attractive and voluptuous nude models were put in their place). Naturally, the acting and production values were atrocious and the films were much more silly than erotic. It is always refreshing to see naked women before the modern era of institutionalized anorexia and silicone implants, but you'd do better with the later 70's sexploitation films like the "roughies" or the "ghoulies" which often featured the same kinds of women but were far sleazier and had actual (and often mind-warping) plots. You see one nudie-cutie film on the other hand you've seen them all.If you MUST see one though of these movies though, this is a good choice. It ranks somewhere between "The House on Bare Mountain" and similar "The Monster at Camp Sunshine", but unlike both those earlier films it is in color. It really should be called "The Beast that Killed Woman" as only one woman is killed (and probably owing to censorship, she is fully clothed at the time). The beast also throws a guy in a lake and most of the movie is taken up with the police interviewing this second "victim" in his hospital bed or with various nude or semi-nude women discussing how scared they are and whether they should leave the resort. My favorite scene is where a woman is screaming for help and one of these bimbos responds by jumping out of her top bunk and hopping into the lower bunk with her friend (yeah, that makes a lot more sense than calling the police). The "beast" by the way turns out to be an escaped gorilla (or rather a man in a very unconvincing gorilla suit). What is a murderous escaped gorilla doing in a Florida nudist resort? You know, they never really do say. Oh well.
suspiria10 Here we go, back to those swinging sixties.This nudist / horror hybrid is so bad that you can't help but smile and enjoy it all the way through. All the standard prerequisites of a bad movie are here. You get in abundance horrible acting. I have seen people read cue cards with better panache. A bevy of bare boobs and butts parade around for ambiance (after all this is a nudist camp). Let us not forget that the titular title `monster' is a man in a dime store knock off gorilla suit. You know that you are talented when you make a film this bad, no one would think a film like this could be taken seriously.. But the biggest part of a bad film is unintentional laughs and this one has them in abundance. This movie will work well with the bad movie lover. Thankfully it runs about 60 minutes. But even at that it looses steam about 25 minutes before that.