source: The Amazing Transplant

In this movie, every woman is perceived as a sexual object and every man as an ogling deviant. It feels like something a dirty-trenchcoated man would conjure up, but because it's the work of Doris Wishman, the material seems more subversive, like it's trying to make a statement. Still, even if it is, this movie is just gross. The plot is that a guy murders a woman, rapes a bunch of other women, and is evidently on the run although not trying very hard to hide. A hardboiled detective is on the case, interviewing each rape victim in great detail while leering at their legs. Larry Hunter's performance as Detective Barlen is something to behold. Not once does his facial expression match what's being said to him. He constantly raises his eyebrows quizzically and he seems befuddled by statements like "Come in" and "I just made coffee." I assume Wishman filmed a selection of reaction shots and then ADR'd the soundtrack, which explains why the last ten minutes, with the killer confessing his crimes, consist of two actors covering their faces while their dialog is superimposed. Spoiler: The killer was a nebbishy virgin who envied his lothario buddy Felix. When he learns Felix is ill, he convinces a not-terribly-ethical surgeon to transplant Felix's--y'know--to his groin. Judging from the plentiful sex scenes, the surgeon did the killer no favors, since the member in question is perpetually detumescent, although the actors attempt to indicate otherwise. This movie does feature one of the great closing lines, right up there with Casablanca: "Come on. Maybe I can help. I dunno what I can do but maybe I can do something. Come on. Let's go." Need I say more. Need I say more.

I have delved deeper into the amazing(ly bad) world of Doris Wishman's catalogue of 70's exploitation flicks. Yes, I'm a glutton for punishment. And, these ain't getting any better. On one hand I'm totally puzzled on a myriad of levels, on the other, I guess I get some unintentional laughs (the best kind). Arthur likes to maul women, in repeated bizarre (and unsuccessful) attempts to have sex with them. So the woman he loves and wants to marry... He strangles. Enter Arthur's uncle, a detective who insists himself on the case (there are a few insanely redundant and mind numbing coercion scenes to be found here), and the story (har har) is comprised of this hard-boiled, no nonsense detective (so no nonsense, he hardly says anything, and will just bail on a witness, in a whole series of confoundingly irrational interrogations) talking to women who recount their encounters with Arthur, via flashbacks. It is revealed with 10 minutes remaining, that Arthur had a * transplant with some psycho womanizer with a * for gold earrings. Go figure. I am troubled by the thought that "Deadly Weapons" was the highlight of this Doris Wishman set I got. I feel like there is still a world of hurt in store for me.

If memory serves me right, this is the first Doris Wishman film I have seen. To me, it can be likened to seeing a car crash by the side of the road: it is tragic, awful but something tells you to keep looking. After Arthur Barlen has had a * transplanted from his dead friend, Felix, he goes on a raping and murdering spree whenever he sees gold earrings. His detective uncle (Larry Hunter, who reminds me of Burt Young of Blood Beach 1980) has the task of tracking down Arthur. Doris Wishman certainly seems to be something of an acquired taste. There are pointless shots of objects such as a telephone base and carpets as people walk over them. Walking along the streets is also a good one. Then there is the off-screen dialogue. This film is supposedly classed as a "roughie" but compared to other films of the genre it seems quite tame. Maybe it is because the DVD version reviewed runs for only 71 minutes instead of the database figure of 77 minutes and the more extreme stuff has been cut; but why? Surely we should be able to make up our own minds.

Perhaps a trained psychiatrist could help me understand why three of the films I have recently rented have had to do with what I can only call homicidal genitalia. First there was "One Eyed Monster," in which the alien-possessed wiener of Ron Jeremy goes on a murderous spree. Then there was "Teeth," about a teenage woman with the condition known as "* dentata." And now...1970's "The Amazing Transplant"! The director's credit in this film is given as "Louis Silverman," but the picture's use of unsynchronized dialogue, meaningless shots of inanimate objects, horrendous acting, bad fashions, garish decor, sloppy editing and an oftentimes non sequitur jazz score all demonstrate that the real "auteur" here must be none other than "the female Ed Wood," Doris Wishman. During the course of this truly sui generis experience, the viewer meets Arthur Barlen, a young man with an unfortunate tendency to attack and rape any woman he encounters who is wearing gold earrings. The cause, as his detective uncle soon discovers by doing a little sleuthing (and I really don't think I'm spoiling too much for potential viewers at this late date), is the * transplant that Arthur had had three months earlier. During this bloodless procedure, Arthur remains fully conscious and even carries on a running conversation with the operating surgeon! Anyway, having previously suffered through five other Wishman epics--"Nude on the Moon," "Bad Girls Go to Hell," "Another Day, Another Man," and the Chesty Morgan abominations "Deadly Weapons" and "Double Agent 73"--I suppose I should've known what to expect here. Just call me a glutton for punishment. This DVD, by the way, from those maniacs at Something Weird, looks surprisingly fine--better than it deserves to--and, typical for this outfit, comes with some pretty wacky extras. The naval scare film on sex hygiene might just turn you away from intercourse for good!

There are far too many fascinating (and fun) elements in the Amazing Transplant to simply trash this Doris Wishman film as a whole. True, the story unfolds at times like a disjointed train wreck. But quirky little cinematic treasures should deter one from aggressively ridding the fast forward button. Meek and kind hearted Arthur Barlen admired his close friend so much, that upon his death, Arthur wanted to have his own * removed, and replaced with the * of his deceased buddy. Now THAT'S friendship! And contrary to other reviews, Arthur was anesthetized during the surgery, and the absence of an attending nurse during the procedure was reasonably and logically explained In Frankenstein, when Dr Frankenstein inadvertently implants the brain of a psychopathic murderer into the body of his monster - mayhem ensues. Of course, this couldn't happen in the Amazing Transplant. Because everybody knows - men don't think with their . . . ah um - *. Right? Only it appears that in this movie (as in life) that we do. Because Arthur's new dong drives him to kill the first woman who arouses him. Arthur's uncle, police detective Barlen, searches for clues in hopes of proving Arthur's innocence. Endless closeups of the detective's facial expressions (his eyebrows were hilarious) blended with closeups of the hem lines of the women he was questioning (or maybe ogling would be a better word), painted the disheveled detective as a cross between Columbo and Chester the Molester. At times Det. Barlen seemed more dangerous than did his young nephew, walking around with his former friends' hostile *, sutured to his groin. Wishman's treatment of the numerous women Arthur encounters is more interesting and bizarre than menacing or sexual. Nudity is abundant and it's good to see some body hair again. Five stars for the Amazing Transplant It would have been a solid six stars if shown at a drive-in theater!

I admit I was a Doris Wishman virgin till the other night, but "The Amazing Transplant" finally broke my cherry. Cheesy, smutty grind house fare like this comes as a breath of fresh air to a cult film enthusiast like myself. I watched it twice (at 70 minutes, not hard to do) just to make sure I absorbed every aspect of the film's dubious appeal. I was glad I did! Wishman's work here reminded me of early John Waters minus any of his dubious artistry. What is seen here is the the use of ordinary homes and apartments as sets, the shooting of street scenes without permits, actors providing their own wardrobe, and footage being shot without synced sound and then adding all dialog in post-production. The story has nice average guy Arthur turning into a serial rapist and murderer for reasons no one can ascertain. Neither his concerned Mom, or his police detective Uncle, can fathom why Arthur is considered a suspect in the murder of his girlfriend since he is such a gentle soul. The worried Mom turns over Arthur's "little black book" to his Uncle, who goes about the task of interviewing the women listed in the directory. They all recount episodes (seen in flashback) of being raped by the once gentle Arthur, who becomes a sex maniac when he sees a woman sporting dangling gold earrings. Fascinating in its sleaziness, if only because it transports the viewer back to the late 1960's, much in the way a home movie would. There's enough to enjoy in the costumes, decors, wallpapers and set decoration, all of which Wishman lavishes attention on, to keep viewers interested. There's even a few frames of a close-up of a carpet, with nothing on it but a little dust. I laughed at the lingering shots of a telephone cradle, as someone speaks into the receiver off camera. Extended shots of the character's feet with ugly shoes or boots, and garbage-strewn sidewalks add elements of randomness. Wishman constantly relies on reaction shots of her characters, seldom focusing on any character delivering dialog. The over-dubbed dialog is heard spoken off camera throughout the entire proceedings. Actually, some of the actors are attractive and exhibit a willingness to attempt a performance, including Brazilian Juan Fernandez as Arthur. He soon gave up acting and went behind the camera to become a cinematographer. But Larry Hunter as the pasty detective Uncle, and dour Linda Southern as the concerned Mother give absolutely toxic performances that really could make audiences run for the exits. Some of the actresses who play Arthur's victims seem attractive enough, but all their half-hearted struggling against him isn't convincing in the least. ** out of *****

This is a movie about a man's *, however that * is never shown (what would Lacan say?). It falls into the category of "roughie," which is to say that the plot makes it sound nastier than what we actually see on the screen. Essentially, Arthur, a young virginal man who envies his friend's sexual prowess arranges to have the friend's * transplanted to his own body when the friend conveniently dies of a rare virus. Having heard that his friend was really into women with gold earrings, Arthur finds that he can no longer control himself when any woman wears gold earrings, and he assaults them, rapes them, and sometimes kills them (it's not clear why he kills some and not others, except that some of them have to survive to tell the tale or the plot doesn't work). Of course, this being a smut film, all the women Arthur encounters wearing gold earrings are of course young and pretty. The rapes are also fairly tame, even by roughie standards, which I tend to attribute to the director, Doris Wishman (an actual woman as opposed to the many pseudonymous women in the business at the time). She also uses the movie as a means of exploring the many ways women respond to rape – some of them blame themselves, some of them are angry at the world, some of them decide they actually liked it after the fact, etc. She also touches on some interesting questions of the then-illegal status of abortion, as the doctor who performs this mad operation is an illegal abortion-doctor. Of course, Doris was no feminist, and this film is today mostly a goofy example of smut from a pre-penetration era, but there isn't another like it, even in the oeuvre of Edward D Wood.

This is classic Doris Wishman - shots of dead air, horrible dubbing, impossibly bad acting, New York City streetscapes, and scene direction so terrible that'll it make you gasp. (Also expect a ton of her signature feet shots and eccentric art direction; this time around it involves a puzzling equestrian theme). Anyway, if you know Doris and like her take on gonzo sleaze, "The Amazing Transplant" is gonna be a fun time. Similar to "Bad Girls Go to Hell" "Deadly Weapons" and "Double Agent 73," this movie is, in its awfulness, pretty consistently funny. My only real complaint with "Transplant," as an unintentional comedy, is that the sex scenes are way too long. (Picture a 5-min scene between two ugly people, most of which comprises shots of the guy's bare arse. Yeah...). That said, expect to fast forward through some parts. It is worth it, though, because almost every scene is laughable in some way. (The scene with the killer's mom, whose dress sports multiple mustard stains, had us laughing heartily). If you are new to Doris Wishman, and feel up to the task of viewing some of the poorest film-making imaginable, I'd start with "Bad Girls Go to Hell," because it showcases all the signatures of the Wishman style, minus half the sleaziness of "Transplant." If you had a good time with "Bad Girls," and weren't offended or anything, queue up "The Amazing Transplant." This is unintentional surrealism at its sleazy finest. Further proof that Wishman was, alongside Coleman Francis, America's most inept film director.

Amazing Transplant, The (1971) ** (out of 4) Just imagine THE HANDS OF ORLAC or MAD LOVE but made into a sexploitation movie by the cult item Wishman. In the film, the kind Arthur (Juan Fernandez) gets a * transplant but it turns out this * belongs to a serial rapist. Soon the oh-so-sweet Arthur is attacking any woman he sees wearing gold earrings. It goes without saying but this movie is going to have a very limited appeal and the ones who rent (or buy) this title are going to be fans of trash and those exact fans might find this movie rather tame. Yes, the storyline is rather outrageous but I was rather shocked to see how tame the movie really is. You'd expect something wild and crazy but for the most part it's just your typical softcore feature that doesn't even feature too much nudity or sex. Yes, it's a lot more than your typical Hollywood movie but I've seen dirtier sexploitation flicks. The film (thankfully) only runs 71-minutes but even at this short time it starts to wear out its welcome because we just see one attack after another while a detective tries to figure out what's going on. The movie features bad acting, rather sloppy direction and various other bad items that will make this appeal to fans of bad cinema. The movie is worth watching if you like trash but if you want to go extremely hardcore then you should check out Wishman's even more notorious LET ME DIE A WOMAN, which to date is perhaps the most disgusting movie I've seen.