VinnieRattolle Spoilers are minor... I'd read about this film a few times over the years, so when I caught it on TCM a couple years ago, my expectations were low -- most everything I've ever read about the movie's been negative. What I didn't expect is that the movie would skyrocket to near the top of my list of all-time favorite films. It's not especially original, the identity of the killer is revealed about 10 minutes in, and some of the dialogue is completely inane, but this little-known flick still oozes charm. It's like a '60s sitcom in the guise of a '70s horror movie.What makes "Wicked, Wicked" so special isn't the story or the gimmicky split-screen that's employed throughout the entire film, it's the characters. Every character, large and small (and many annoyingly uncredited) is wonderfully quirky and likable. There's hotel resident Mrs. Karadyne, who's sweet and eccentric and has a penchant for stretching the truth. There's Genevieve, the sex-starved gift shop employee. There's health-obsessed Hank, the resident lifeguard/waiter who has a secret life as a gigolo (amongst other things). There's Rick, the horny house detective with the troubled past, who was once married to defensive lounge singer Lisa. There's socially awkward and misunderstood electrician Jason, who has a whole mess of skeletons in his closet. There's senile organist Adelle Moffett, who never says a word or interacts with any other characters but still manages to be a scene-stealer. There's Mr. Simmons, the hotel manager, who's more concerned with covering up than investigating recent murders and disappearances. There's inept Police Sgt. Ramsey, who belligerently believes he's always right. There's bellboy Jerry, who's a bit lazy and self-centered and is only out to make a buck (can someone please identify the actor who plays him?!). And then there's the Hotel del Coronado, which really is a character unto itself more than merely a location. There's something lovably askew and almost Rocky Horror-ishly unique and comical about every character.The split-screen is used to good effect, frequently furthering the characters as their pasts are delved into in flashbacks. When it's not being used for flashbacks, it reveals two simultaneous occurrences or two different points of view of the same scene. Many have called the "duo vision" distracting and unnecessary, but I think it was easy to follow and added a lot to the movie. Matter of fact, the editor should've won an award -- there's a couple times when a person moves just slightly out of sync on one side of the screen, but overall the editing's flawless.If anyone with half a brain at MGM had thought to run this on the midnight circuit in the '70s, perhaps it wouldn't still be languishing in near-total obscurity. While I am, indeed, grateful to TCM for unearthing and infrequently airing this delightfully demented variation of "Phantom of the Opera," I'm still praying for the day it gets a remastered, anamorphic DVD release (TCM's print is hardly flawless and it's been slightly cropped to an improper 2.35:1 aspect ratio). I never tire of watching "Wicked, Wicked" and I think there's a big cult audience that's still waiting to discover this quirky gem.

lazarillo This movie has several strikes against it from the outset. First off, is the split-screen ("duo-vision") gimmick, which is effective when used sparingly by filmmakers like Brian DePalma (or going WAY back silent French filmmaker Abel Gance), but is pretty annoying when used extensively (check out the ill-advised sequel "More American Graffitti"), and likely to give many viewers a splitting headache. Then there is the killer who is stalking a seaside hotel. The movie not only makes no attempt to hide his identity from the start, but the clues he leaves along the way are so incredibly obvious that you want to scream at the protagonist (a dimwitted, womanizing security guard)for not being able to figure out who he is. Finally there's the wretched theme song ("Wicked, wicked, that's the ticket. . .") that was apparently actually sung by actress Tiffany Bolling, who should have stuck to stripping off in bad movies like this (and speaking a stripping off, Bolling takes her usual gratuitous shower in this movie behind a particularly opaque shower curtain, just to add insult to injury).Despite all this though, I kind of enjoyed this movie. It has an enjoyably nasty sense of humor, and only in the 1970's could anyone possibly get away with making a wrongheaded experiment in cinematic ineptitude like this and still have it backed by a major studio (MGM). As for those who find this misogynistic or offensive, check out a couple other Tiffany Bolling vehicles/feminist treatises "The Candy Snatchers" and "Centerfold Girls" sometime!

halcyon2000 Wicked, Wicked is unique in that it is shot entirely in DUO-VISION (a gimmick of early 1970's cimena). Brian DePalma used this technique with great success in both Carrie and Phantom of the Paradise. The problem here is that Richard Bare is no Brian DePalma and the story is completely idiotic.the one saving grace of this film is the moment at which the duo-vision becomes "uni-vision" during the climactic moment of the story. You have to see it to appreciate the greatness of that one shot. Perhaps the director came up with that idea and then made a whole story around it?

Stephen-12 I can hardly begin to express what a disgusting, worthless piece of excrement this film is. When you consider how much talent there is in film-making, to know that a major studio (admittedly, on its last legs) funded this garbage makes you want to grab a sharp implement.Why is it so awful? All right (deep breath):1. The split screen. It's distracting. It adds nothing to the narrative. It isn't used to make a point (as Tarantino does in Jackie Brown). It's just there as a selling feature.2. The performances. God help us.3. The script. God continue to help us.4. The story itself. Who the hell thought this would be an original idea?5. The child abuse sequences. So appallingly exploitative, so unworthily sickening, so POINTLESS...I wanted to throw something at the TV.6. The tacky tone. The sexual puns are puerile beyond belief. The Farrelly brothers would never have stooped this low.7. The theme song. Still stuck in my head after about 10 years. GO AWAY!!!!There are plenty of other reasons why this obscenity should be thrown into the Pit of Hell, but I really can't bear to go any further. Every copy of this should be consigned to fire, and everybody involved in it should be taken outside and shot, their bodies burnt, their ashes buried and the whole site concreted over.If this diatribe persuades people to go and see it, it has failed in its mission. Don't ever employ its maker to do anything again, I implore you.The least enjoyable bad film ever made. Can I give it a minus score, please?