SnoopyStyle Hippie chicks Carol and Maureen get a ride from Chuck in his bus turned Mobile Home. Maureen predicts it's gonna be a bad trip because of his sign and the stars. Chuck is delivering the bus to Tallahassee but gets lost in the Florida Everglades. Maureen feels drawn to an altar in the swamp.The actors mumble through their lines, not that any of the dialog is anything to write home about. The characters are bad. The story is worst. The whole thing is amateurish. It's a hippie mind trip for the exploitation drive-in crowd that titillates with some nudity. It may have some artistic pretensions but it is almost unwatchable.

brucerussellmyers In 1972, the last Apollo mission landed on the moon and the country settled into its second Nixon administration and the residue of a turbulent decade that would slowly transform the optimism of the space program and civil rights era into an era of cynicism, corruption, and disco.Enter Chuck, Maureen, and Carol - each representing an archetype of these troubled times in a highly allegoric film (actually I found the character of Carol unnecessary to my thesis). Chuck is apparently driving his mobile home north through the Florida Everglades when he picks up the two aforementioned females. The mobile home is clearly a reference to the Apollo missions as it is equipped with a phone to some mystery home base (they even talk in astro-speak) and Chuck's outfit closely resemble Buzz Aldrin's wardrobe - at least how I imagine it.Maureen is hesitant to climb aboard and we soon learn that she is a seer, a soothsayer who combines her past experiences with a Catholic priest and her current worship of the pagan god (yep, you guessed it) Apollo to inform her trepidation. Maureen spends much time alone in the film visiting pagan temples in the everglades and reading her tarot cards. She interestingly calls Chuck an "Aries Superhero," and none of the men who landed on the moon were Aries. Is Chuck the next traveler to our lone satellite? Coincidence?What is most fascinating about Maureen's story is her encounter with two symbolic characters. A politician character named Max (clearly an acronym for Moon Astronaut Explorer) who promises her that he is 1000% for any issue she supports. He appears to have index cards for all possible positions (pro-choice, pro-life for example) and Maureen shoos him away, perhaps disturbed by his impossible math.A more interesting encounter is when Maureen meets up with a balloon wielding clown. She is amused at his collection of gas-filled spheres and takes one to hold. The camera angle starts to suggest that the balloon is a moon trying to eclipse the sun. This potential darkness disturbs Maureen, and the clown comes closer. The clown mask is suspiciously close to Richard Nixon's face and when he unmasks, Maureen flees in terror. Who was under the mask? My guess is that it was the doomed cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov.I should mention that much of the movie involves gratuitous nudes scenes suggesting lots of casual sex and immoral romps. The everglades are also suspiciously free of alligators, although a pretty lame boar appears when our characters get hungry. My best guess is that the boar is often used a symbol of inner weakness, and we soon realize that Chuck may not be up for space flight. The sex is probably a biblical reference to God telling us to be fruitful, multiply, and try and get back to the moon (that part was omitted from the King James version so popular today).Nevertheless, this movie has peaked my interest in physics and engineering - and perhaps a field trip to South Florida is in the works.

Michael_Elliott Pick-up (1975) 1/2 (out of 4) Crown International flick was part of BCI's Drive-In Collection set but I'm really not sure what the hell this film was trying to do. Two hippie chicks (Jil Senter, Gini Eastwood) hitch a ride with a hippie guy (Alan Long) but soon they both regret it. As I said, I have no idea what this movie was trying to do but it's without question one of the dumbest films I've ever seen. I love drive-in trash but this thing was simply beyond bad and the only reason I don't give this thing a BOMB rating is because it's so strange that you have to watch it until the end just to see how much stranger it will get. The two female leads only appeared in one movie and this is it. I wouldn't say their performances were awful but they are pretty bad but a lot of this is due to the really bad screenplay, which has everything from a priest molesting one of the girls to one having some sort of sexual fascination with God (or perhaps it was meant to be Jesus). There is quite a bit of nudity, which is good because otherwise this film would be unwatchable. I'm going to guess this film was trying to be some sort of Easy Rider rip off but it doesn't have a single moment going for it.

Tommy Nelson Pick-up is a low budget 70s sexploitation film, and what is one to expect from a 70s sexploitation film but a mildly entertaining plot and a lot of sex. Well, though the latter was featured quite prominently, it is very hard to nit pick the story, as there is none to be seen. This is no more than a random trip in a bus with a guy and two girls, and the crazy happenings that go on.Two hippie chicks, Carol (Jill Senter) and Maureen (Gini Eastwood), are meditating in a field, meet a crazy hippie guy, Chuck (Alan Long), who has this nifty bus. They go on what seems to be a spiritual adventure involving seeing things that aren't there, and running around naked through a field. The climax of the film is so mind blowingly stupid, you wouldn't believe someone actually penned this awful "story"(?).The main problem with the movie is it makes no sense, and has no story. At least if it had a nonsensical story that would be something, but this movie just doesn't try to tell us anything. It's just about some young people and their sexy naked adventures. At times, this movie can be extremely slow too, and it gets boring. It seems the only reason anyone would enjoy this film, is for it's large quantities of nudity and sexuality, but even that can't keep people interested through the many lulls.This is a fun flick if you like bad '70s cinema, but otherwise avoid this strange and silly movie.My rating: * out of ****. 75 mins. R for nudity/sexuality, and language.