Best movie ever!

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

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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.

Country music singer Rachel Foster is wrongfully accused for family mass murder.She ends up in a women's prison led by Warden and Dr.Kline.It seems that both of them are conducting bizarre psychological experiments on the inmates where they are mentally broken down and rebuilt with a totally new personality.Wonderfully hokey and very tame exploitation flick with fairly gruesome mass murder aftermath and a bit of graphic nudity.The ending is pretty stupid and there is mildly infamous scene of Linda Haynes covered in insects which probably was the main reason of putting "Human Experiments" on video nasties list.7 country singers out of 10.I must say that I enjoyed this absurd exploitation classick.Am I the only one?

I'd heard nothing but bad things about this film prior to seeing it, but yet I still went ahead and watched it purely because it was one of the films banned by the DPP back in the early eighties. Judging by the title, I was expecting this film to have been banned for scenes ghoulish experimentation, but it would seem more likely the DPP opted to take it out of circulation simply to spare film viewers from its inherent boredom. Apparently, Human Experiments is a 'women in prison' flick, but instead of ritual torture and nudity, all we have is a film where absolutely nothing at all happens. Human Experiments is by far one of the most tiresome movies I've ever had the displeasure of watching, and honestly; the only good thing I have to say about the film is that at least it only lasts about eighty minutes. They are eighty very long minutes, however, and unless you've decided to see everything on the Video Nasty list as I have, there is absolutely no reason to see this film. For once, I agree with the censors - this movie really shouldn't be viewed by anyone!

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!