Add a Review

  • spowell6927 January 2006
    Caught this on Drive-In channel (which I love) and it's actually pretty dang good.

    • it's got a plot! - lots of beautiful women. Naked! (not nowaday silicone bimbos) - empowered women! For instance, there's a great line in the movie, one of the best I've ever heard, where a rape victim gets the upper hand and asks the slimeball, "what's wrong? All the romance gone out of it?" Love it!!! - lots of funny moments. I love the phil spector type famous music guy who they have to pull of one of the women and he's panting like a dog. Hilarious! - Did I mention the beautiful women? Incredible natural bodies and one gorgeous woman actually has short hair, which I didn't think would fly in one of these 70's drive-in flicks.

    Man, these movies, which were probably considered to be bad, even dumb, back when they were made, are so much brainier and more fun and waaay less offensive than the crap Hollywood passes these days. Hollywood movies are offensive in much a more slimy, insidious way. Many are just plain disgusting. Even the "Go Girl!" movies that come out these days are so obviously written by men and highly offensive.

    God, the 70's was easily the best time to go watch a movie.

  • Let's see if I got the plot to "Candy Stripe Nurses" correct. I believe it went something like this: topless woman, topless woman, naked woman, topless woman, naked woman, topless woman, 2(!!) topless women. There was also a subplot about one of the nurses trying to help a patient beat a charge of armed robbery.

    In all seriousness, I rather enjoyed parts of this movie. I know this is going to be hard to believe, but the acting by the women playing the nurses was wonderful. Usually the women in these types of movies simply have to speak English and look good without their clothes on. (Although sometimes the speaking English part isn't necessary.) Every one of the actresses in "Candy Stripe Nurses" did an admirable job and all of their characters were sympathetic ones. That really helped to partially overcome the cheesy plot. I've seen A LOT worse '70s movies similar to this one. Kinda fun little flick...but nothing that'll blow you away. 4/10
  • Roger Cormans' wife Julie produced this final entry in his "Nurses" sex comedy series. It's actually got a decent enough, easy to follow story (by director Alan Holleb), and even though it might not be trashy enough for some people, it serves up the expected sex and nudity in adequate fashion. Certainly Holleb does a commendable job at following the established formula.

    Once again, the magic number of nurses whom we follow is three. Candice Rialson is Sandy, who is intrigued when an insufferable rock star (Kendrew Lascelles) is brought to the hospitals' sex clinic for some sort of dysfunction. Robin Mattson, sporting an appealing pixie cut, is Dianne, who is turned on by a jock (Rod Haase). And Maria Rojo is Marisa, a trouble making girl who's given a volunteer job as a candy stripe nurse to keep her occupied. Marisa is moved by a young man who is implicated in a service station robbery, and determines to clear him.

    Overall, not as memorable as earlier entries in the series, which had more developed social commentaries, but it's very easy to take, very sexy, (with an attractive female cast showing off the goods to great effect), and well paced, with Holleb cramming a fair amount of action and exposition into the final act.

    Rialson, Mattson, and Rojo are sufficiently appealing, and ably supported by a cast including some old pros (Bill Erwin, Don Keefer, and the great Dick Miller, who once again works his magic as a basketball spectator) and an up and comer (Sally Kirkland makes an appearance as a wife in a clinic).

    An entertaining romp, with bouncy music by Eron Tabor (the head rapist in the rape-revenge classic "Day of the Woman") & Ron Thompson, and slick photography by Colin Campbell.

    Seven out of 10.
  • This movie was yet another follow-up to the hit Roger Corman quickie The Student Nurses and went along similar lines, but had a completely different cast and no story carry-over. Instead of young professionals trying to succeed amid the temptations of the swinging early 70s, though, this time we have high school aged volunteers. The cast are all inexperienced unknowns (Candace Rialson went on to do a fair amount of TV work over the next few years), but the real problem is that while the advertising promises laughs, the script doesn't provide any. The box copy suggests a hospital romp along the lines of Carry On Doctor, but the movie just gives us 90 minutes of following the girls around in their silly peppermint striped uniforms, and then off to parties where they smoke dope, take off their tops and have sex. Tame sex. Nothing else of much interest happens. Unlike the first movie, where every major character had a proper character arc, there is little here in the way of character development. We just get a few familiar types (the rebel, the serious student who wants to be a doctor, the party girl) and some standard antagonists (insensitive sexist doctors, rigid administrators etc.) for them to conflict with. The result is more hospital soap than romp and not very interesting or entertaining. The girls are pretty hot, though, and this one isn't quite as insanely trashy as Private Duty Nurses, making it a little more watchable (or a little less watchable, depending on what you're looking for).
  • This movie--which is the fifth (and last) film in the "Nurse Series"--revolves around 3 young women who for various reasons volunteer to become candy stripers at their local hospital. While there they meet some interesting people and get deeply involved in the lives of some of the patients. Billed as a comedy this movie is really more of a low-budget exploitation film than anything else as the humor isn't that sharp. It might also be worth mentioning that during this particular period in time drive-ins were starving for just about anything they could get because the regular theaters were acquiring all of the mainstream films. So this type of movie was a staple for outdoor theaters during this time. Unfortunately, the quality of these films were often lacking and this movie is no exception. Even so all 3 of the young ladies were somewhat attractive with Candice Rialson (as "Sandy") standing out the most in my opinion. But none of them were able to bring this movie up to even an average rating.
  • A sex-comedy following the exploits of three volunteer nurses, or 'candy stripers'.

    Marisa, who has been ordered to do volunteer work as a punishment for assaulting her teacher, falls for a young man who has been accused of knocking over a gas station, and does some investigating to try and clear his name.

    Sandy, on the other hand, has taken the job in order to be with her doctor boyfriend, but also takes up with a few of her handsomer patients as well before transferring to a sex clinic.

    Dianne, meanwhile, falls for a basketball player, whom she tries to talk into giving up drugs for good.
  • I was originally not planning to say much about this movie, pro or con, except to tell you what my only reason was for wanting to see it -- which I'll come back to later. My thinking was that it wouldn't be fair to pick on this movie for being merely a sophomoric sex comedy when it was never meant to be anything more. But there WAS an attempt to make it something more -- which succeeded only in making it something less. NURSES attempts to surgically graft two serious dramas onto the sex comedy, and IMHO, the graft didn't take. The end result doesn't even begin to qualify as serious drama, but has probably frustrated many folks who were looking for a sex comedy.

    To be fair, I should mention that the DVD edition includes an interview with Roger Corman, who produced the movie, in which he says NURSES was an experiment, and admits it might not have the same appeal as a movie that stuck strictly to formula. So if it was meant to be an experiment, I still shouldn't pick on it, but I have to say the experiment was a failure.

    Now, to get back to my reason for watching this movie, it seems there's a connection between NURSES and the controversial rape and revenge movie I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (a.k.a. DAY OF THE WOMAN). That connection is actor Eron Tabor, who played one of the four rapists (Johnny, the service station worker) from GRAVE, and co-wrote the rock music for NURSES. (My source is the feature-length commentary on the Millennium Edition DVD of GRAVE.) Unfortunately, there's no way to tell how much of the music was written by Tabor, because the opening credits attribute the music simply to `Thompson & Tabor.' There are a few vocal numbers, and I'm wondering if it could be Mr. Tabor singing.
  • I actually expected this to be more of a sexploitation flick. It was comic in nature ( I imagined it would be that) but many parts were like a straight drama. You had 3 stories going on at once---switching from one to the other---involving dramas that were happening to 3 of the nurses (high school age girls). One out of the three was somewhat interesting. There were action things in the film, but despite this the film moved slow and felt long. There was the required nudity but it wasn't a big deal. The comedy was corny. Yet overall there was entertainment value. If somebody asked me, "Would you rather have watched this title or not watched it," I would reply in the negative.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A trio of lovely young volunteer nurses get seriously involved in their work at a local California hospital: Brash and moody adolescent Marisa Valdez (a wonderfully feisty performance by Maria Rojo) goes out of her way to prove the innocence of angry framed patient Carlos (an excellent portrayal by Roger Cruz), sweet and spunky eager beaver Dianne (the adorable Robin Mattson) falls for hunky pillhead basketball player Cliff Gallagher (likable Rod Haase), and spunky and saucy Sandy (the delicious Candice Rialson in peak vibrant and sexy form) tries to seduce decadent and arrogant rock star Owen Boles (hysterically overplayed to the broad hilt by Kendrew Lascelles). Writer/director Alan Holleb's debut feature bristles with loads of frenetic energy and a certain infectious playfulness: the brisk pace never flags for a minute, the cheerfully tart and bawdy humor remains good-natured and inoffensive throughout, and, naturally, there's a pleasing abundance of tasty female nudity. A familiar cast of B-flick regulars pop up in nifty bits: Tara Shrohmeier, Sally Kirkland, Kimberly Hyde, and the ubiquitous Dick Miller as an obnoxious heckler. The bubbly soundtrack and funky-groovin' score by Thompson and Tabor both hit the right-on stirring spot. Randall Robinson's bright cinematography gives the picture an attractive sunny look. Highly recommended to 70's drive-in film buffs.
  • Hermit C-224 June 1999
    This is the kind of thing that passed for a skin flick in the '70's. They do a lot better job these days. The title is a lot more titillating than the film itself. Candice Rialson and Robin Mattson, both veterans of this type of mild fare, star in this forgettable entry in a series of "Nurse" movies that Roger Corman put out, which doesn't even have a lot of funny '70's fashions and hairstyles to laugh at. Only for those serious students of the history of drive-in movies.
  • This is my first "Nurses" movie, an unofficial series (without canon I mean, you can watch them any which way you want I suppose) from Roger Corman's New World Pictures, which started as... well, I'm sure there was some sort of idea from George Armitage and Corman originally, but how it got to Candy Stripe Nurses is mostly due, I'd assume, to economics: these movies made money, as far as they went, and this was one of the later ones. In a way I'm glad I started with this one since I'm sure that it can only go up from here, hopefully anyway, as far as the quality of the writing and acting.

    Of course, one would argue, I shouldn't expect much quality when it comes to that stuff. This is about young, teenaged-to-20-something aged women in uniforms getting into shenanigans, usually involving their breasts coming out of their outfits.

    There is some mild attention here to plot, actually three of them, almost with the kind of looseness I'd associate, of all things, with something like Car Wash (that might be due to the LA mid 70's shaggy period flavor): one girl, the Latina one, is brought on as a nurse as a way of curtailing possible juvenile dilenquency, and becomes involved with trying to hunt down the actual culprit of a convenience store robbery as the man who was shot and caught is in the hospital; another woman is (maybe?) attracted to a rock star who has, so to speak, lost his mojo; one last girl (who probably is the "better" actress of the bunch) hooks up with a college jock and helps him with his homework, despite the fact that she's still in high school.

    Again, it's all soft stuff, and that's fine, but I can't help but try and, you know, pay attention to things when I watch a film like, say, repetitive music or lazy/tired shot compositions, or that there is some acting (Maria Rojo as nurse Marisa Valdez) that would've needed work in a high school production. There's some fun to be had with the story involving the haggard/mojo-less rock star, since that actor seems to get what the context of everything is, and at first some of the music was alright. The rest of the time it felt like a movie that is, even as the first "nurse" movie I've watched, going through the motions of its plot almost exactly as you'd expect... well, maybe not entirely: there IS the part where the basketball jock is somehow allowed behind the wheel to go tearassing around town drunk at night with other nurses in the car with him because... well, the movie needs a climax, don't it?

    There's also the requisite number of breasts - some quite nice, actually - and, here and there, rapey vibes that perhaps can't be helped given the kind of sleaze we're accepting. I'm not sure what potential there was for this, but I think one legitimate criticism, past going after the performances or (for the most part) the filmmamking in general, is that we don't really get to see much of the girls even *in* the hospital as the nurses doing their work; that might be fine for others, but it seemed odd to have a movie with this title and about 10 minutes of it is spent with the girls actually seeing them do what they do (including, here and there, getting it on with other doctors/patients/etc).

    Point is, it seems like once I double back to Armitage and Jonathan Kaplan's films, I should likely expect... well, MORE of whatever it is.