Rattlers (1976)

Sorry, this movie sucks

Fresh and Exciting

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Sadly what could have been a lot of fun (it is for some…but for the wrong reasons), I just found Rattlers (1976) rather dull. You have the Mojave Desert and killer rattlesnakes: just put together a decent plot to accompany those items in a film and voilà. Alas. The film has this herpetologist hired by a desert sheriff to find reasoning behind a series of snake attacks on locals in his town and county. Added eventually to his mission is a female photographer immediately initiating her women's lib philosophy as he is hesitant to take her along with him into the desert to research possible reasons regarding the snakes being so aggressively hostile and homicidal. A military base with a colonel who had a barrel disposed of in a mine shaft soon emerges as a potential suspect in what might be causing the snakes to kill as they do.Set pieces include a young man climbing up a ladder in a barn and finding a rattler waiting on him in a loft, snakes found scattered in a domestic mother's home, a plumber underneath a house in cramped confines (my favorite moment) undoing a pipe and receiving some uninviting company, and a loose pipe allowing snakes to sneak into the bathtub of a divorcée as she kicks around (hey, stupid! Get out of the tub!). The jeep tire sequence with the two soldiers getting out to put on a spare--instead getting an unwelcome attack from snakes (yep, snakes can fly up to a spinning tire, grasp a moving tire with their fangs, and take a chunk out of it…this, a military-issued jeep)—is as head-scratching as the herpetologist and photographer driving off to Vegas for a bit (in one of those cheesy romantic interludes vignettes, no less) of a getaway. They return and immediately have their tent (none other time but this one, at the end) raided by the snakes. The barrel soon brings military superiors to the colonel and he goes off-the-grid mentally, shooting a "biomedical doc" (a drunk who knew too much; in his first appearance he flirts with the photographer) before driving on to the mine shaft, getting into a gunfight with the sheriff and his cops and a couple military guys (the colonel even tosses a couple of grenades!). The snake shots are done cautiously to avoid seeing the snakes actually biting the human victims through the editing. None of them are all that impactful. The film does come right out of the gate with two boys falling into a rattlesnake trap informing the audience that no matter who you are or what age, death is right there at any time. There is simply too much dead space that drags the pace and its lack of real talent in front of the camera doesn't help, either. It fits, however, into the summer where movies like this might go down easier. This is for the drive-in, especially, and for nights where you could afford to forfeit good time for bad product. Rattlers is probably best for bad movie lovers. It has a plot and characters, performances and style, fit for those who enjoy the mildew of film. The Mojave desert, though, is a fantastic place to shoot a killer snake movie...too bad talent hasn't done so yet.

Rattlers (1976) ** (out of 4) After a series of snake attacks, an expert (Sam Chew, Jr.) is called in and he's assigned a photographer (Elisabeth Chauvet) and the two set out to discover what the cause is. As they're investigating more violent snake attacks begin happening and it seems an abandoned mine might have something to do with it.RATTLERS is one of many "nature gone wild" movies that were released throughout the 1970s. Obviously the greatest of these was JAWS but there were some pretty good films like GRIZZLY, DAY OF THE ANIMALS and countless television movies. RATTLERS really isn't all that entertaining and the "snake" subgenre had better stuff including SSSSSS and even FROGS had some good snake scenes.If you're a fan of the genre then this one here is certainly still worth watching at least once and there are some effective scenes scattered throughout. The highlight of the movie is a scene where a woman goes to take a bath and gets some uninvited guests. This sequence is directed and edited extremely well and will have your skin crawling. Many of the attack scenes look somewhat cheap because of how they were edited as it's clear most of the time there aren't any snakes anywhere near the person on screen.The biggest problem with this picture is that there's way too much downtime where the characters are just talking back and forth. The dialogue isn't all that entertaining nor is the relationship that blooms between the two leads. The performances by Chew and Chauvet are good but we just needed more snake action.

This movie begins with two kids climbing up the walls of a canyon and falling into a rattlesnake pit. Because they are so disfigured by the repeated snake bites the local sheriff calls in an expert by the name of "Dr. Tom Parkinson" (Sam Chew Jr.) who works at a nearby college. Although puzzled by the numerous bites he doesn't really offer much help until other cases begin to emerge. After that he and a female photographer named "Ann Bradley" (Elizabeth Chauvet) are led by their investigation to a top-secret army compound which seems to be in the in the middle of all of the incidents. Now, rather than reveal any more of the movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this wasn't terribly bad as far as films of this nature are concerned. Personally, I didn't think the acting was too bad considering the awful script and some of the ridiculous scenarios the actors were given. That said, although I typically enjoy movies of this type I thought this particular film wasn't nearly as good as it could have been and I have rated it accordingly.

When a couple of kids vacationing with their family in the desert are discovered deceased without apparent cause, an eminent herpetologist (Chew) is recruited to assist baffled police. Assigned a freelance photographer (Chauvet) to document evidence, covert enquiries lead the pair to discover that a secret military testing site might be responsible for the apparent aggressiveness of the local rattlesnake population. Sounds more exciting than it is, unfortunately.Talky, clichéd time-filler at best, with little in the way of suspense or action; "Rattlers" may not rattle any pacemakers for shock value, and at times tends to look more like a glorified reptile lecture, than a motion picture. Sam Chew is tepid as the tertiary scientist reluctantly seconded to the Mojave desert to provide authorities with a professional opinion on the cause of two suspicious deaths. Chew does a realistic job of looking totally ambivalent about his task, whether it's the dialogue or the method he employs that's driving that motivation is unclear. His offhand approach is flawless, and his male chauvinist streak is neatly contrasted by his tenacious and equally independent tent buddy (Chauvet) who adds some dimension to the acting.Little attempt is made to have the rattlesnakes realistically interact with the cast, either through props or stunts, and thus, the audience is treated to limited action, totally bereft of thrills or suspense. Even the scene in which Kaye is bathing, while a rogue rattlesnake stalks her, affects no suspense or shock value, despite the elaborate set-up and staging. But the most peculiar feature of the film, is the scene in which, amid all the simmering tension, the two leads digress to Las Vega$ for a night of fun and frivolity on the roulette tables. Like an intermission, no segway or explanation – just a random sojourn to the casino capital for a brief repose, and then it's back to the hard core snake facts and the job at hand.Earnest in its attempt, there are some dedicated performances in the supporting ranks (Gold, Jostin and a brief but 'memorable' appearance by Kaye who was once a Hollywood most-promising-newcomer in the mid sixties) but this is a snake-movie, not a political thriller, and more action was desperately needed to combat the often soporific and somnolent narrative.