Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

This movie begins with four young ladies robbing a man, stealing his car and leaving him unconscious on the side of the road. They then drive the stolen car to a man named "Joe" (Timothy Farrell) who gives them $50 each and has a young man take the car to a garage to have it repainted. We soon find out that Joe not only deals in stolen automobiles but he also has a small gang of young men and women who have become addicted to heroin and rely upon him to supply their needs. He hooked them on it and now he essentially owns them. Now, while this movie would pretty much be unremarkable today what's interesting about this picture is that it was filmed back in 1954--ten years before the advent of the "hippies" and the explosion of drugs in the 60's. That said, the subject of heroin (and possibly marijuana) was probably pretty novel for its time. Because of that this particular audience probably had no idea about the effects of either drug. As a result what they are shown about marijuana is greatly exaggerated. Conversely, the effect of the heroin "trip" is somewhat minimized--but not the addictive quality. Naturally, it's that result which is what Joe is aiming for as he skillfully uses marijuana as the "gateway drug" to entrap these young men and women into an addiction to heroin. And they willingly do whatever he says to get their next fix. Whether it requires theft, prostitution, blackmail or even murder doesn't matter to them. Neither does it matter to Joe as long as he makes money. Anyway, as far as the movie is concerned I thought it was definitely dated and had a B-movie quality to it. As a matter of fact, other than the presence of Joanne Arnold (as "June") I can't really think of anything that stood out. Accordingly, I rate this film as slightly below average.

A study in drug abuse like Reefer Madness, Girl Gang emphasizes the sleazy aspects associated with like-minded juveniles who find themselves corrupted by marijuana, and Heroin and delivers a mish mash of gratuitous exploitation.In an isolated apartment on the wrong side of the tracks June (Joanne Arnold) hangs out with her friends who come there to buy "weed" cigarettes, marijuana, from Joe (Timothy Farrell) who runs a business of selling Heroin to school kids and getting them addicted so they will pull crimes for him. Joe keeps a disbarred alcoholic physician Doc (Harry Keaton) on hand to help with assisting the school kids with clean injections. Joe secures a job for June with a local merchant in order to support her mounting heroin habit. June begins selling sexual favors, and when she is caught stealing money from a business Joe and Doc come forward to blackmail the man into silence. When Joe sends June and some others out to rob a local gas station, a girl gets shot and the police close in on the drug-infested apartment.It's too bad that, given the resources, the movie could not have been better. Judging by the mise-en-scene, the budget for the film looks to be about as good as it was for Detour nine years earlier. The major difference being that Detour has a strong central character and a strong story arc that carries the viewer from the opening through to the end, whereas Girl Gang never seems to focus on the right thing, first having a girl-gang robbery, which introduces us to drug dealer Joe, which leads us to June, but since June is our main character it only makes sense for us to learn about her and where she comes from and why she has ended up at Joe's apartment. Since we never know why June does what she does we have nothing to care about in the character and her downfall doesn't mean anything to us.Part of this is the charismatic screen persona of leads Tom Neal and Ann Savage in Detour. Not to take away from the relative merits of Joanne Arnold, and Timothy Farrell, but they were not A-listers nor were they strong actors, although Farrell did have a stronger presence than the eye-candy Arnold. To be honest Arnold was cast because they had a great body and this vehicle was to sell from the male gaze that was seeking cheap visual thrills from her presence on screen.Arnoldhad done the Playboy spread in 1954 and the producers must have thought they had a sure box-office with her in the movie. She's beautiful to look at but seeing her in motion in the movies it's clear she is not an actress. Her face never registers a glimmer of thought and the lack of her characters progression in the film makes it a flat gratuitous thing.

This is, without question, a bad film. The acting is often pretty crappy (with 'actors' who can't deliver their lines), the production values low and the emphasis is purely on exploitation! However, in a sleazy way, it's also very interesting and certainly will keep your attention! It definitely falls into the category of 'so bad, it's good'! This film is of some mild interest because one of the main characters, 'Doc', is Harry Keaton--Buster's real life brother. You can't tell this by looking at him or seeing him act--he's just another apparent no-talent in a vast sea of no-talents! Additionally, the film stars Timothy Farrell as 'Joe'--a sleazy sort much like the guys he played in other no-budget exploitation films as "Test Tube Babies", "Glen or Glenda" and "Jail Bait". He plays his usual greasy crooks--and in such roles, Farrell (a bailiff in real life) was pretty effective."Girl Gang" begins with a group of nasty women beating a guy up and stealing his car. It seems they are heroin addicts and have brought the car to Joe so they can get a fix. In fact, throughout the film LOTS of troubled people come to Joe for pot and heroin--and Joe is very obliging--giving them their first dose for free. Then, when they get hooked, Joe has them commit various crimes to pay for more. You see ladies prostitute themselves, blackmail, commit robberies and the like--all to get their beloved heroin. Eventually, as in all exploitation films of the era, these folks get what's coming to them. But in between, the film is very explicit for the time--with rather frank discussions of prostitution as well as how to shoot heroin. The latter was VERY realistic--and I wonder how many folks might have learned to use the drug simply by watching Joe give a step-by-step lesson to a newbie on using it! As I said, the film is pretty funny because it's so badly made. Look at the 'ladies' delivering their line when the gang meets up with Joe at his hangout or the cop and doctor talking outside in front of the Prison Ward sign. None of them delivered their lines with any conviction--just like some semi-literates reading cue cards. Also, look for the shootout. When one of the wicked ladies shoots the gas station attendant, she then tosses the gun to the attendant who is lying on the ground bleeding. And, he then shoots the gang members!! Huh?!? But my favorite is the ultra-lame cat fight near the end of the movie. Seeing Betty White and Bea Arthur doing this scene together would have been sexier--and a lot more convincing!! Overall, terribly bad...but a hoot to watch with other bad movie buffs. Enjoyable trash.

This movie is actually one-of-a-kind. It is so very bad, especially the sound, the lines, the acting.... that it is really entertaining, worth a view. I would not buy it, or rent it...but if it pops up on Comcast "Something Weird", as it did for me...check it out. The fact that it shows how to free-base heroin, way back in 1954 , marijuana (Mary-Janes)and the whole drug scene, way back then, just really amazed me. The babes are "cheese-cake" all the way, Joanne Arnold went on to be a Playmate Centerfold May 1954 (The month/year I was born) makes it extra special. Joe, the drug dealer wearing a "tie", the "like Mom's kitchen -so warm and friendly"...the old cars...very entertaining in a strange kind of way!...