Reviewed by Colin Jacobson (December 29, 2024)
Given its title, one would assume that 1975’s Russ Meyer’s SuperVIXENS provides a sequel to 1968’s hit Vixen. One would assume incorrectly, as outside of a mutual focus on sexually active buxom women, the two stories share no substantial connections.
Clint Ramsey (Charles Pitt) works as a gas station attendant at a location in the US southwest desert. His wife Angel Turner (Shari Eubank) treats him poorly, as she takes out her jealous nature on him.
Upset when she believes Clint cheats on her, Angel seduces police officer Harry Sledge (Charles Napier). When he can’t perform sexually, SuperAngel taunts Harry, a choice that provokes him to murder her and burn down the house.
To escape punishment, Harry pins these crimes on Clint. This sends Clint on the lam.
All with lots of sex along the way, of course. This seems natural, as what runaway homicide suspect doesn’t find himself pursued by plenty of random women with enormous breasts?
Although I said that Vixen and SuperVIXENS shared no similarities beyond “lotsa naked big-boobed babes”, this doesn’t prove entirely accurate. In addition, neither movie comes with a particularly strong plot.
Though SuperVIXENS does fare better in that regard. Vixen existed as a largely story-free exploration of a horny – and unlikeable - woman’s actions, whereas at least SuperVIXENS attempts an actual narrative.
SuperVIXENS also delivers a radically different tone. Vixen took itself seriously and devoted a chunk of time to social, racial and political domains.
On the other hand, the “sequel” brings a comedic romp. Director Russ Meyer fully embraces a wacky satirical tone, one that seems like a weird match with the violence involved in the story.
Does this work? Not really, partly because the film shifts at the drop of a hat.
At its core, SuperVIXENS wants to deliver a bawdy romp. Usually campy, it takes aim at flicks of this sort to offer a satirical version.
After all, I find it tough to swallow a film that makes Nazi Martin Bormann (Henry Rowland) the owner of a remote gas station. Meyer clearly wants to deliver a rowdy and broad comedy.
Essentially SuperVIXENS exists as a gender-reversed spoof of all those movies in which a young woman travels and finds herself seduced by a selection of pervy guys. Here we get beleaguered Clint – unwilling to fornicate with other women despite the death of his wife – as he attempts to fend off the advances of a slew of hotties.
In theory, this could offer a lively tale, but Meyer can’t pull it off. In particular, two concerns dog SuperVIXENS.
For one, Meyer continues the misogynistic streak he showed in Vixen. That movie’s lead offered a genuinely foul character, a selfish racist who proved entirely unlikable.
This trend continues here, as SuperVIXENS abounds with problematic female roles. Even if we ignore what a nasty piece of work Angel offers, the majority of the women Clint meets offer fairly terrible people as well.
Sure, some exceptions occur. Still, I can’t ignore bitter and nasty way Meyer depicts women here.
In addition, the scene in which Sledge murders Angel feels like it comes from an entirely different film. After an opening that exploits wacky comedy, this sequence becomes borderline brutal to watch.
I suspect Meyer figures we won’t feel much sympathy for Angel’s plight because we already view her as borderline despicable – and that proves true, as it becomes tough to care about her fate. Nonetheless, the movie paints Harry’s assault in such a dark manner that it feels disconnected to the rest of this broad comedy.
It doesn’t help that the Harry/Angel sequence runs much longer than necessary. Perhaps Meyer figured we needed to see how actively Angel provokes Harry to have it make sense.
But the film doesn’t require this at all. We quickly accept Harry as a psychopath and a shorter and less graphic sequence would still convey the necessary information.
Or maybe Meyer simply could’ve found a way to justify Clint’s journey without the involvement of violence and slaughter. Meyer seemed to believe the film wouldn’t work if he left out the extended murder scene, but I disagree, as I think this section just throws off the tone too much.
Even without the slaying, SuperVIXENS would remain an iffy proposition, mainly because it just doesn’t go much of anywhere. The stabs at comedy lack much wit and the overall theme of Clint’s time on the lam doesn’t click.
At least not in this tale’s context, partly because much of the movie avoids the legal repercussions of Clint’s travels. Even when his past comes back to haunt him, it does so in an accidental manner that feels too coincidental.
Those events also precipitate another perilous tone shift that fails to succeed. Maybe a better filmmaker could pull off these jolts, but Meyer couldn’t.
Less than stellar acting doesn’t help. On one hand, Napier offers easily the best performance of the bunch, but on the other, his intensity feels out of touch with the rest of the film.
The others tend to seem fairly amateurish. Of course, Meyer populates the movie with a bevy of sexy ladies, but none display particularly strong acting chops.
105 minutes also seems too long for this particular tale. Chop it down to 85 minutes and it goes down more easily, but at this particular running time, SuperVIXENS wears out its welcome.
All that said, I think SuperVIXENS fares considerably better than Vixen did, mainly because it attempts an actual story. Whereas the 1968 film used a general framework as an excuse for lots of sex and skin, the 1975 flick follows a real narrative path.
Granted, it doesn’t work, but I give Meyer credit for his willingness to try to give us a “real movie”. Nonetheless, SuperVIXENS lacks creativity, charm or laughs, so even with a lot of attractive unclad women, it turns into a less than enthralling experience.