therascalsarchives I liked a previous comment posted here that voiced the probable concerns of the studio "heads" of the era: What kind of films should we make for these kids who like to go to the movies stoned? The problem with BIPPY is...the stoners evidently were the ones MAKING the film (that NO ONE went to see). This dog was hardly ever shown on TV (at least not in NY area) FINALLY caught it on a cable movie channel decades and decades later.My only viewing of the film for years was the print feature that ran in FAMOUS MONSTERS magazine.After years of build-up...boy what a let-down. There are only two reasons for a normal guy to sit through this; Julie Newmar (post-catwoman already) and Carol Lynley (pre-Poseidon Adventure).I never understood the appeal of Rowan & Martin to begin with--even on Laugh-In. They were acceptable as low-end comedians at a bowling ally, but didn't deserve the run they were able to have IMHOBut they were OK...this movie makes like a vampire, though-and SUCKS

kelticman This was the big screen attempt at taking the success of Rowan and Martin from TV to Film. I know it failed as a mainstream hit, but it succeeds wonderfully as broad retro camp. I liked this film overall but it is not one you will watch over and over. It is a one shot watch, maybe once more if you with a good friend who really loves camp or laugh in. This is no classic in the way that Zorro the gay blade or Abbot and Costello were. If this were 1979, I might say pass on this film but just getting the feel of sixties, even a g-rated version, is a lot of fun now nearly forty years latter.For the record, vampires are mentioned in the movie but do not appear, not even actors who are pretending to be people pretending to be vampires. The fact that in dream sequence one character dresses like Dracula does not merit calling this a vampire/werewolf flick. The vampire angle was played up in way that comedy horror tries to tell the mainstream viewers: "hey this film has stuff like vampires/werewolves/zombies/mummies" Trying to tell people who don't know the difference between a zombie and a mummy that a flick has" werewolves and vampires and stuff" rarely works. One comment said this was neither fish nor fowl. That is the biggest problem of the movie. It borrows from comedy/horror/mystery and buddy flicks in such a way that it has no real focus. The mystery is not that mysterious, the horror not remotely scary, the romance angle weak (they really should have played that one up. If the movie ended with a couple walking off happily ever after THAT would appeal to mainstream people much more than the4th wall breaking so much in the last 5 minutes. This is the next real weak point after the lack of focus: the fourth wall breaking as the ending. It reminded me of The Holy Grail when writers obviously gifted enough to write a passable ending decide to break the 4th wall when they could not come up with a great ending.I did not like the ending...but it reminded me of dating....the fun of the relationship was worth the crappy ending.

yenlo So what's a Bippy? Well if your old enough to remember Rowan and Martins Laugh-In you'd know. This film actually goes no where but does feature the gorgeous Julie Newmar. It's terribly dated like Laugh-In but in a weird sort of way it's entertaining.

ajax-12 This curious filmic transplant of Rowan and Martin's "Laugh-In" is notable for being the first movie I've ever seen in a movie theater and the first one I recall seeing at all. I was five years old and my family was traveling in a rinkydink town in Minnesota (Duluth, if you're interested) and it was on the same day as Neil Armstrong and company's landing on the moon. The only scene I remember from the original viewing was the one in which Dan Rowan is under the impression that the foxy vampiress can transmogrify into a tiger and, consequently, acts strangely intimate with the tiger. A most strange movie, like the TV show, and worth seeing for sixties psychedelia buffs.