Subtle and wholesome this movie ain't! In fact, it's about the trashiest film I have seen in ages--and I've seen a lot of films!! The characters in the film are 100% awful and low-class--sort of like a 1930s version of the guests from "The Jerry Springer Show"! The film is unapologetically trashy--with boobs (and a whole lot more), cursing, irreverence and rednecks galore! It's obvious that Roger Corman was NOT trying to make a film that would be featured on "Masterpiece Theatre" or in the Criterion Collection!
The film is about 'Mama' (Angie Dickenson) and her two rotten daughters. After starting a fight during a wedding and running off, this lovely brood goes into business selling moonshine and doing anything else they can to earn a buck...and I mean anything. And yet, despite being trashy and wicked to the bone, Mama declares that they are a nice family and refers to her white-trash daughters as "my little girls"--even when they strip in public or sleep around with practically anyone or anything. We are obviously NOT talking about a deep or particularly consistent group of people!
Later, this wholesome family kinda drifts into the bank robbing business. In a genuinely funny scene (one of the few in the film), during their first robbery, another gang also tries to rob the bank at the same time! In the process, one of the gang members are killed and the two gangs merge--with Tom Skerritt now becoming the love interest for Mama. Just a bit later, Mama meets up with William Shatner--and almost immediately jumps into the sack with him. Skerritt isn't pleased and assuages his feelings by jumping in the sack with BOTH of the younguns'. Despite also living during the 1930s, this WON'T be mistaken for "The Waltons"!
In addition to this sick group are two Federal agents--one of which is a perennial actor in Corman films, Dick Miller ("Bucket of Blood" and "Little Shop of Horrors"). Both these agents have the intelligence of maggots and I assume they were added for comic relief--just like Boss Hog and the boys from "The Dukes of Hazard".
This is also obviously NOT a film to show your pastor or rabbi!!! I can also see CC's point--this film is bound to offend ANYONE--particularly religious people. This film is obviously what you might call a "guilty pleasure"--you just turn off your brain (and your sense of moral outrage) and enjoy as best you can. It is especially recommended for people who consider "The Dukes of Hazard" and "Jackass" and "Flesh Gordon" to be fine family entertainment.
So, despite being 100% trashy, is the film worth seeing? I would say for most people, no--mostly because the writing and acting are incredibly broad (i.e, BAD). This simply is a poor and rather vulgar film--though possibly enjoyable in a low-brow sort of way. While some might like such an unapologetically bad film, others might just have their jaws drop in disbelief at the utter awfulness of it all. Of course, stupid people may enjoy this mess of a film. You KNOW this is so when William Shatner's performance is the most subtle and understated in the entire film!!
A couple final notes, and not that it matters as this is NOT a film for purists, but one scene has a picture of J. Edgar Hoover on the wall--circa 1960. A mistake but hardly important considering everything. Also, over a decade later, "Big Bad Mama II" debuted. Considering how the first movie ended, I have no idea how such a sequel could have been possible.
The film is about 'Mama' (Angie Dickenson) and her two rotten daughters. After starting a fight during a wedding and running off, this lovely brood goes into business selling moonshine and doing anything else they can to earn a buck...and I mean anything. And yet, despite being trashy and wicked to the bone, Mama declares that they are a nice family and refers to her white-trash daughters as "my little girls"--even when they strip in public or sleep around with practically anyone or anything. We are obviously NOT talking about a deep or particularly consistent group of people!
Later, this wholesome family kinda drifts into the bank robbing business. In a genuinely funny scene (one of the few in the film), during their first robbery, another gang also tries to rob the bank at the same time! In the process, one of the gang members are killed and the two gangs merge--with Tom Skerritt now becoming the love interest for Mama. Just a bit later, Mama meets up with William Shatner--and almost immediately jumps into the sack with him. Skerritt isn't pleased and assuages his feelings by jumping in the sack with BOTH of the younguns'. Despite also living during the 1930s, this WON'T be mistaken for "The Waltons"!
In addition to this sick group are two Federal agents--one of which is a perennial actor in Corman films, Dick Miller ("Bucket of Blood" and "Little Shop of Horrors"). Both these agents have the intelligence of maggots and I assume they were added for comic relief--just like Boss Hog and the boys from "The Dukes of Hazard".
This is also obviously NOT a film to show your pastor or rabbi!!! I can also see CC's point--this film is bound to offend ANYONE--particularly religious people. This film is obviously what you might call a "guilty pleasure"--you just turn off your brain (and your sense of moral outrage) and enjoy as best you can. It is especially recommended for people who consider "The Dukes of Hazard" and "Jackass" and "Flesh Gordon" to be fine family entertainment.
So, despite being 100% trashy, is the film worth seeing? I would say for most people, no--mostly because the writing and acting are incredibly broad (i.e, BAD). This simply is a poor and rather vulgar film--though possibly enjoyable in a low-brow sort of way. While some might like such an unapologetically bad film, others might just have their jaws drop in disbelief at the utter awfulness of it all. Of course, stupid people may enjoy this mess of a film. You KNOW this is so when William Shatner's performance is the most subtle and understated in the entire film!!
A couple final notes, and not that it matters as this is NOT a film for purists, but one scene has a picture of J. Edgar Hoover on the wall--circa 1960. A mistake but hardly important considering everything. Also, over a decade later, "Big Bad Mama II" debuted. Considering how the first movie ended, I have no idea how such a sequel could have been possible.