Schoolgirls in Chains (1973) User Reviews

A personal favorite of Gloria Steinem.

[capkronos · 6/10 · 4 May 2003]

Two very disturbed brothers kidnap women, take them to their secluded farmhouse and lock them in the basement. They seemingly do it for their mother (a la PSYCHO), who is only seen from behind, sits on a rocking chair and says, "Ah, it's good to have two fine boys!"

Johnny (John Stoglin) is the mentally adolescent one in overalls who bounces up and down, likes to be pushed around in a wheel barrow and, more importantly, likes to play "games." The sick games include doctor (where women are stripped naked, fondled and get a syringe stuck in their ass) and topless leap-frog (?!) John is also a voyeur who watches a young couple have sex, then kidnaps the girl.

The other brother is Frank (Gary Kent), who is depressed, impotent and sulks around a lot in deep thought. He seems fairly normal except during scenes where he rants about his mother, kills and tries to rape a captive. In one scene he relates an outrageous flashback to how his mom drove his fiancée away by telling her that "We make love! We make love like two lovers!".

The sickly chained up women in the basement have rats crawling on them while they sleep, are beat, sometimes killed and constantly humiliated and subjected to the sick games of brother Johnny. They're referred to as "pets", "toys" and "playmates" by their captors. Yes, this film (the video I picked up was titled LET'S PLAY DEAD) is very trashy, offensive and misogynistic, but cult/sleaze movie fans will love the depravity at work in this entertaining and mostly forgotten gem of the 1970s exploitation circuit.

Sick and sleazy exploitation flick

[The_Void · 6/10 · 28 June 2006]

This bizarre slice of "Drive-In" cinema takes obvious influence from films such as Psycho, and handles the graphic and unsettling themes of incest, rape, torture and necrophilia. The film wallows in its sadistic nature, and it's rather unsurprising that Schoolgirls in Chains has suffered banning in several countries, including the UK (although it's not an official Video Nasty). It has to be said, however, that it really isn't all that good; as while the themes comes across in a way that is as sick and as sleazy as possible; the whole piece is actually rather boring on the whole. If you go into this film expecting something along the lines of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or The Last House on the Left, you will no doubt come out disappointed; as Donald M. Jones' film is as good as neither notorious film. The plot follows the antics of two deranged brothers who take delight in holding schoolgirls captive by chaining them up in their basement. However, they're not content with merely holding the girls; as the brothers' sick and sadistic nature means that they have to subject the girls to a number of humiliating games.

As you would expect from a film with a title like "Schoolgirls in Chains", the atmosphere is very sleazy; and shots that see the young, innocent girls wearing a collar pretty much sum the film up. Director Donald M. Jones (probably a pseudonym) stays away from making the film overly erotic, however, and it's probably a good thing that Schoolgirls in Chains doesn't depict the actions of its lead characters in a favourable light. Jones' direction is solid, but since this film was made for the drive-in, you can't expect any directorial brilliance - and this film doesn't have any. The acting is similar in that it's nothing to write home about, although both Gary Kent and John Stoglin get to have fun in their absurd roles. Stoglin plays the retarded side of the pair of brothers, but it's Gary Kent who wins most of the plaudits where the acting is concerned for his portrayal of the more subdued side of the pair. The locations are well used, and the house in which most of the film takes place is suitably rural and isolated. Overall, this film isn't bad and will no doubt appeal to exploitation fans; but it's not as great as similar seventies genre efforts such as The Last House on the Left and House on Straw Hill.

One of the sleaziest films you'll see

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 16 January 2015]

The 1970s was the era of cheap 'n' sleazy chicks-in-peril movies that saw dozens of often unknown, unremarkable starlets being menaced by sweaty, swarthy, ugly men. All across the backwoods of America, low-budget film-makers were churning out these 'grindhouse' releases for the masses, to disgust discerning viewers and entertain perverts. Seen today, these movies seem a little sad, a little desperate to grab the viewer's attention. Their sole purpose is to shock, to titillate and disgust. Wes Craven's LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is the best known, but many other, virtually forgotten movies came out in its wake and this is one of them.

From the beginning, the most obvious influence on this film is PSYCHO. Though it's never shown explicitly, there's a guy who dresses up as his deceased mother to retain control over his household. The acting is pretty much what you'd expect from the amateur nature of the proceedings, but that's not to say the film isn't realistic: it is. Sometimes too realistic, especially in the kinky game that the child-minded brother likes to play with his victims, which invariably involve the young women undressing. There's a little action, including the inevitable chased-through-the-woods-by-a-psycho moments, but it's mainly saved for the admittedly decent climax. John Stoglin overacts as you'd expect, playing a maniac with a child's mind, but his brother is played by a professional actor, Gary Kent, who gives a good performance.

I did enjoy this film's photography - the camera-work is well-handled and the various scenes well staged, with interesting points of view. Unfortunately, what music exists is diabolical. One chase seen has somebody howling "run" on the soundtrack, which completely fails to have the intended effect and instead proves to be a laughable scene. A distasteful rape scene is made ten times worse by the inclusion of cheesy romantic music on the soundtrack! I mean, who in their right mind would add that? Although the film isn't really very violent, it is unpleasant thanks to the conversations about incest and scenes such as the one where a young girl is stripped down and has a syringe stuck in her bottom. Not something anyone would want to see, I imagine, but it was the 1970s and anything went.

Psycho-pstyle pseventies psickness.

[EyeAskance · 3 December 2003]

Charming little thrust of misogyny concerning two psychotic brothers(one, a drooling, feeble-minded idiot, the other a more literate and functional idiot) who abduct random pretty girls off the interstate and imprison them in a filthy storm-cellar. The purpose for this is that the girls are regularly utilized as props for the brothers' sick, perverse "games". The reclusive mother of the boys, a strict, punctilious old broad, oversees these sadistic activities with loving but cautious approval.

A gleaming example of "only in the 70s" cinema, this lovably tactless little mud-wallow is a treasure-trove of trash-a-plenty. Incest, torture, nekkid gals, rape, and murder...all the requisite bases are covered, and there's even some almost-artful production qualities. Sure, the conceptual nuts-and-bolts of SCHOOLGIRLS IN CHAINS might be hackneyed and unoriginal, but this flick injects some pretty edgy nastiness into those worn-out ideas and shoves them straight up your nose.

Recommended to most, and mandatory for vintage trash-film zealots...7/10

Very very tame

[Tender-Flesh · 3/10 · 9 October 2009]

I'm not sure what I was expecting from this film. I suppose I did want to see some schoolgirls and some chains. And I sort of got both. There are maybe 2 scenes with chains, but they are like dog leashes, which is pretty silly. And after forcing myself to finish the abortive The Forest, by the same director,(and yes, I foolishly purchased The Forest, curse my hide), I have no idea why I wanted to see this. I read that this was up on the banned list for a while, not sure if it really was banned or what. Apparently the title Schoolgirls in Chains was substituted with Abducted, but some censors still found copies with the original title and flipped. Anyway... What you have here is your basic Psycho rip-off with a little Of Mice and Men thrown in. Two brothers, one a sort of regular guy(who sleeps with his mother, OK there is no sleeping going on) and another guy who is a simpleton who likes to play children's games, live in a house where they keep girls they have abducted under their home in a cellar. There aren't a lot of sex games, as one might expect with a title like this, but there is one rape scene which is rather mild and brief. Mainly, you have the idiot brother, John, playing games like Hide n Seek or Follow the Leader with the girls as the damsels plot for ways to escape. Of course, I was waiting the whole time for the "pay-off" which would come in the form of some good revenge on the part of the girls. Unfortunately, that didn't really happen. Frank, the "regular fellow," does get his comeuppance, but by his own hand, leaving John presumably to be a ward of the state again. Strictly speaking for myself, because I'm strange, I would have thought a much better ending would involve the latter-day heroine, Bonnie, and her boyfriend going into the upstairs bedroom and finding Frank and John in bed with their mother's dead body, or Frank dressed as his mother with John next to him and Frank talking like their mother. Or just shotgun the lot of them.

In short, you really have to have nothing better to watch than to sit through this one. Minimal nudity, no gore(except for a shot or two of a decaying body), sloooow pacing, bad acting, no violence to speak of, etc. But....it's still a lot better than The Forest.

Not bad!

[paul-ayres-60784 · 5/10 · 20 August 2018]

A good entertaining movie with interesting characters It's not a masterpiece but it's worth watching. The thing that spoils it for me is the abysmal soundtrack!

Incest? No no, we call it LOVE!

[Coventry · 4/10 · 9 October 2007]

"Schoolgirls in Chains", with its grotesquely provocative yet inaccurate title, may perhaps thrive on a series of ultimately controversial, shocking and politically incorrect themes, but the low-budget elaboration and lack of talent involved (fortunately?) prevented the film from becoming the nasty exploitation highlight it clearly hoped to be. If director Donald Jones would have been capable of gloriously depicting all the rancidness he suggests in the script (including rape, torture, necrophilia and incest), then "Schoolgirls in Chains" indeed would have been a genuine exploitation classic, but now it's just a mildly offensive & amusingly inept 70's trash-gem. The most demented aspect about this film (*** extra spoiler warning ***) is that the story's hero is a teacher who actually has sexual liaisons with under-aged female students. How incredible is that? Normally he'd be thrown in jail for that, but here he ends up saving the day! The story introduces two middle-aged brothers still living in their secluded parental mansion and filling their days with, well, nothing really… except kidnapping random young girls and subjecting them to torturous games. Johnny is mentally disabled and doesn't fully realize his victims don't voluntarily choose to play doctor with him. His older brother Frank is more of a silent type, but equally disturbed and at least ten times more misogynist. His behavior was mostly triggered by an awkward mother/son relationship. The flashback sequence in which the mommy colorfully explains to his one and only girlfriend how she and Frank make love ALL the time is easily the best part of the film. The mother is still watching over her boys, by the way, though she can only seen from behind or heard in the distance. In other words, if you know your classics …*cough* Psycho*cough*cough*… it's easy to guess the final denouement. The atmosphere of "Schoolgirls in Chains" is overall sleazy and brute, but the screenplay lacks suspense and suffers from too many dull moments. There's nudity, of course, but no real vulgar stuff.

Girls in Chains (1973)

[suspiria10 · 7/10 · 11 February 2009]

Synopsis: Frank and his mentally underdeveloped brother live with their mother. They kidnap and hold girls that catch their fancy in a cellar for use in their sick games. Their controlling and incestuous mother has twisted them and now no woman in the is safe.

Thoughts: 'Girls in Chains' (original title: Schoolgirls in Chains) is actually above-average Grindhouse fare from the period. The script is relatively solid and although it borrows from Hitchcock's far superior 'Psycho' manages to build its characters with some pathos and detail. The crew did a pretty good job with limited means to give 'Girls' an interesting look with camera movement and shots not usually afforded to these type of films. The acting was above par as the women weren't your average horror movie bubble-heads and the brothers managed to generate some sympathy. As suggestive as the title may be 'Girls' does have the usual nudity and violent sexual debauchery but it is actual somewhat restrained and doesn't go too overboard. If you're a fan of Grindhouse features and/or 'Mother's Day' than 'Girls in Chains' may be for you.

Mildly disturbing, but not particularly SIC

[JRmf · 2/10 · 14 January 2009]

It may be no coincidence that the title letters of this movie form the acronym SIC, and while it certainly isn't suitable for the mainstream prime time TV slot, serious students of bondage or porn will be disappointed if not downright bored by the film. That is, unless jabbing a girl in the buttocks with a needle, playing "doctor" or hide-and-seek, really turns you on.

The title would lead you to believe it is a heavy S&M number, but there is little in evidence apart from decorative dog collars and light chains as the "victim" is led (otherwise unconstrained) around. The two brothers who kidnap young girls and keep them prisoner are not the sort I'd like working around my local school, but they seem far removed from the likes of The Collector or Buffalo Bill (Silence of the Lambs) - too boofy if anything (tho capable of killing).

Any "drama" in SIC seems contrived or stilted. There is sex, a little of it forced, but generally quite tasteful and with little real conviction. Nudity likewise is limited and subdued.

Overall, the film falls well short of any potential hinted at in its title. It's neither an entertaining porn flick nor a serious insight into disturbed mental states, nor a horror flick. It gets a 2/10 from me.

Sleazy and mildly dirty exploitation flick.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 14 February 2006]

"Schoolgirls in Chains" is a "Psycho" inspired low-budget slice of sleaze that chronicles the events of several young girls kidnapped by two maladjusted brothers named Frankie and Johnny who store them in a fruit cellar and routinely subject them to harassment.The films underlying theme of misogyny is primarily filtered through verbal intent rather than visual shocks.The film features Gary Kent as a brooding,incestuous bruiser,John Stoglin as his creepy retard brother and Leah Tate and Suzanne Lund.There is a decent amount of smut and perversity and plenty of nudity,so I wasn't disappointed.Unfortunetely there is not enough violence for my liking and the action is rather slow,but if you like grindhouse exploitation flicks you may give this one a try.7 out of 10.

Swap the girls in the basement with the producers of this thing

[eratomartha · 3/10 · 28 December 2021]

The pointless death in the first minutes of the movie ended my interest in. The senseless killing was just used as a tool to excite the audience, that pretty much sets the ambient for the story - the random acts of senselessness action of some sort, because it is hard to call it abduction(?).

Some of the girls feature nice pre-Farrah Fawcet haircut, and putting on a good face for a bad movie, in which they were abducted, all right, but not by the brothers, rather by the producers, who presumably lured the girls to the basement with the 'you will star in my movie' crap.

And for that and for wasting my time the producers deserve the place in the basement themselves.

Topless leap-frog—need I say more?

[BA_Harrison · 8/10 · 10 January 2010]

The term 'grindhouse' gets bandied about a little too much these days (thanks, QT), but Schoolgirls in Chains is the real deal, a sleazy, low-budget shocker aimed specifically at drawing in a crowd keen to see pure exploitation—in this case, beautiful women abducted and abused by a pair of demented brothers, who have been raised by their sick mother to believe that ALL pretty young females are evil (when, in fact, it's only about 90% of them).

Trapped in the grungy basement of a remote house, the captured women are kept as playthings for man-child John (John Stoglin), whose over-enthusiastic approach to his depraved games often results in his 'toys' being broken (and consequently buried in the family's vegetable patch). Meanwhile, big brother Frank (Gary Kent) is on hand to keep the ladies in control, under the ever watchful gaze of domineering, woman-hating Mother (Greta Gayland).

When John's game of hide and seek with his latest toy Sue (Merrie Lynn Ross) ends up with the gal receiving both barrels from Frank's shotgun, Mother agrees to the abduction of Bonnie, an attractive student who John has been spying on. After Bonnie goes missing, however, her lover—a professor at her college—sets out to find what has become of her...

With a dab of psychological drama (ala Psycho), a soupçon of incest (mother loves her lads a little too much), a smidgen of rape (Frank forces himself on pretty prisoner Ginger, played by lovely Suzanne Lund), a touch of torture (I want to play doctor!), and a whole lot of grubby, low-rent photography accompanied by a suitably discordant soundtrack (complete with an effectively unsettling nursery rhyme theme), Schoolgirls in Chains achieves exactly what it sets out to do—entertain its audience through a series of sensational and sordid scenes in which girls in peril are subjected to all manner of horrors.

It's not exactly art, but it sure is fun (but don't tell mama I said so: she doesn't approve of me watching filthy girls). 7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

Fairly effective trash movie.

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 21 August 2012]

"Schoolgirls in Chains" is a "Psycho" inspired - make that VERY "Psycho" inspired - sordid melodrama about two brothers, Frank (Gary Kent), a brooding creep, and John (John Parker), a simple minded man-child. They're dominated by their overbearing mother (Greta Gaylord), and this woman is a true twisted piece of work. Frank and John kidnap various unlucky, lovely young women to serve as "playthings" to keep John amused. The trouble starts when they snatch Bonnie (Cheryl Waters), a woman who is going to be missed, at least by her boyfriend Robert (Stafford Morgan), a psychology professor. This is enjoyably sleazy stuff, although, truth be told, it might not be quite depraved enough for some exploitation fans. Also, the movie does suffer from sluggish pacing; it would have benefited from more of a sense of "Hurry up and go". Still, they should be entertained by not one but two scenes of playing "doctor" and an impromptu game of topless leap frog. The movie also proves to be worth watching for mom's priceless revelation just past the halfway point, which drove away a young woman who'd wanted to marry Frank. If the old lady is telling the truth, then one can hardly blame Frank and John for being so messed up. Doses of female skin help to raise the sleaze factor, while the acting from all concerned gets the job done, especially from exploitation veteran Kent, whose performance is mostly nicely understated, and the very believable Parker. In fact, these guys are so good one can easily feel sorry for them by the time the movie wraps up; their characters are far from being truly malicious. Also worth watching are the lovely Suzanne Lund as Ginger, T.R. Blackburn as the sickly Stevie, and Merrie Lynn Ross (in her film debut) as the feisty Sue, who learns the lesson of running away. Writer / producer / director Donald M. Jones comes up with some good ways of staging scenes, and the camera-work is reasonably impressive. The original music by Josef Powell is often hilarious, especially when it's far from suspenseful, and the cinematography is courtesy of Ronald Victor Garcia, who started out in exploitation and eventually gravitated towards TV, also shooting the "Twin Peaks" feature film. All in all, this is a decent diversion & bag of trash that can be recommended to fans of the genre. Seven out of 10.

Rough!

[BandSAboutMovies · 4/10 · 26 September 2021]

Also known as Abducted, Come Play with Us, Girls in Chains, Let's Play Dead and The Abduction, this movie predates Mother's Day to feature two crazed brothers - living under the wizened thumb of their mother - who kidnap women and force them to play increasingly depraved games that end up in death.

Inspired by an actual incident in which a missing woman's car was discovered on the side of the road - but the woman was never found - this proves that 1973 was a very nasty - pardon the pun - time to be alive.

Shockingly, this is a well-acted affair, with Gary Kent (who appeared in many an Al Adamson film as well as having an entire film, Danger God, made about him) and John Parker as the Barrows brothers and Cheryl Waters (Macon County Line), Suzanne Lund and Merrie Lynn Ross (who appeared in Class of 1999, White House Madness and Bobbi Joe and the Outlaw) as their potential victims.

Don Jones would also direct Sweater Girls, The Love Butcher, Who Killed Cock Robin?, Lethal Pursuit and, of course, the absolutely deranged The Forest, which also had Kent in a lead role. This was shot by Ron Garcia, who would go on to work on films like Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me and direct The Toy Box, which is another video nasty that we'll be covering.

A section 3 video nasty, this is one of the many early 70s films that I wonder who was begging for in the UK before all the controversy began.

Decent Drive-In Flick

[Michael_Elliott · 19 June 2009]

Schoolgirls in Chains (1973)

** (out of 4)

Two brothers, one a good-looking, seemingly normal man (Gary Kent) and the other a retarded, child-like man (John Stoglin) are sent by their mother to kidnap women and keep them chained up in their basement. Mommy does all of this so that her retarded son will have someone to "play" with. This film certainly fits into the exploitation genre but it isn't as wild or as sexual as the title would make you believe. During an interview on the DVD the director lets it be known that this title was just thrown on by the producer so that it would draw people in. Overall the film isn't too bad but it contains a "twist" in the story, which is so obvious that it really slows the film down because we have to wait eighty-minutes for the characters in the film to pick up on it. If I named the movie or director that this is ripping off then it would be a dead giveaway but I'd be shocked if anyone didn't have it figured out by at least the thirty-minute mark. I picked up on it right when the first clue happens and I'm sure many others will as well. Other than that the film actually delivers some decent performances and direction. The most interesting scene is one that seems to have been copied later in HALLOWEEN. There's a scene where the retarded brother is stalking a future victim and he walks from the front of the house to a side window to look in on a couple making out on a couch. This whole sequence is very close to what we see at the start of HALLOWEEN so it was interesting to see it being done here five years before the Carpenter movie. The low budget actually helps the film because it creates a nice atmosphere and really makes the movie seem all the more realistic. Kent gives the best performance in the film and Stoglin is good too even though his performance is more off the wall during certain times. The nudity in the film is rather low, although the retarded brother does like to play "doctor" with his female victims. There's really nothing too special here but there is enough where fans of drive-in exploitation will want to check it out.

Classic that just doesn't hold up anymore

[The_Celluloid_Sage · 5/10 · 6 April 2020]

Schoolgirls in Chains is basically a lame retelling of Hitchcock's cassic Pyscho. It neither has schoolgirls or any real chains though. The title is typical of the Seventies where outragous titles were used in order to grab an audience. What it does have though is plenty of sleazy exploitive grindhouse nonsense. What elevates this particular piece of trash is that it does try to have some sort of sad meaningful story.

Frank (Gary Kent, who has recently made a come back into Z-move shockers) is the older brother of John (Parker). They live at home with their domineering mother and Frank does his best all round. Unfortunately they also like to keep young women in the basement for the amusement of John. John has the mind of a child and likes to play 'games' with the unfortunate women. Frank as the ever-loving brother does as mother commands and abducts young women for his brother. That is the basic plot.

What elevates this is perhaps that it was indeed based on a classic. We gain an insight into Frank's mind after we learn how his mother was with him when he was younger. The acting for the most part is pretty reasonable for this kind of trash cinema and Kent and Suzanne Lund (as Ginger) are definately the highlights, though John Parker as the child-like Johnny also plays his part commendably. For an sexploitation flick, it's also pretty tame compared to the numerous other offerings that were released around this era. The nudity is also kept to a minimum and is fairly restrained.

Despite Frank's crimes, at one point you almost do feel sorry for him (surprisingly right after a nasty bit of work from him). We do gain an insight into how his mind works. It's also very difficult to think badly of John. I personlly think this was well done for this kind of genre flick. The script and camera work are also above the usual rubbish you normally get with this type of feature. Remade in 1980 by Charles Kaufman as Mother's Day, this is without doubt the superior film, but only watch if exploitive grindhouse type films are your thing. Otherwise, stick to Hitchcock's masterpiece.

The Sage's Rating: 5/10

Schoolgirls in Chains

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 3 June 2009]

Two wackos kidnap young women, holding them captive in their cellar, always answering to dear old mama, who provides instructions and guidance to her sons. When they make the mistake of capturing a college student with some fight about her(..dating a Psyche professor who seeks after her), their devious operation falls off the rails(..a shameless reference to the train whose "character" is utilized to great effect by the director).

Director Don Jones(The Forest)based this sordid, trashy exploitation effort off of an idea that sprung up in his mind after noticing a newspaper article regarding the abandoned car off the highway by a missing girl. Echoing Hitchcock's Psycho, the demented duo of quietly menacing Frank(Gary Kent)and his nutty child-like(..he has the behavior of a kid around 8 always wanting to play children's games with his captives) brother Johnny(John Stoglin)are deeply motivated psychologically by their mother(..whose face is only seen in a flashback when Frank recounts the demise of a potential marriage to the only woman, other than mama, he ever loved to his recent rape victim)who was quite controlling and demanding of her boys. Stafford Morgan is the UCLA professor who doesn't take his college student girlfriend, Bonnie(Cheryl Waters)seriously when she comes to him about the fear of a stalker..that stalker being Johnny, who convinces mama to let him kidnap her.

What a trooper actress Suzanne Lund was as captive Ginger, because not only does her character endure the humiliating "playing Doctor" game with Johnny, she suffers a savage rape at the hands of Frank, whose anger is kindled by her unintentional provocation of his rage, attempting to get away from her captors through manipulative methods. Stoglin goes all out in the role of the misfit who demands his girls play games or else(..his method of intimidation is a pocket knife, for which he uses to threaten, but his behavior remains on a very adolescent level). Kent remains sullen and depressed, his violent outbursts ignited when his female victims attempt to escape from his grasp. His fate is quite unusual for these types of films, but director Jones establishes that Frank is an unstable, very burdened character suffering emotional conflicts. I will admit that Kent isn't exactly a multi-dimensional actor, but his build and menacing eyes make up for his weaknesses. The location(..the house and miles, it seems, of orange groves that isolate it)is ideal for a movie about two weirdos, suffering a mother complex, who hide women away from the outside world. TR Blackburn is Stevie, the first kidnapped victim(..who is ill with pneumonia, and about completely mad)who remains bedridden throughout. Interesting is how the two surviving girls, Ginger and Stevie, are incredibly weak and only when Bonnie, a much tougher broad, is introduced into this bleak, oppressive environment, does hope exist perhaps for them.

Besides a point-of-view shot from the eyes of a tragic victim(..with the creaky noise of rope on wood)looking down on Johnny returning Bonnie to the house after an attempted escape, I think the best sequence is where victim Sue(Merrie Lynn Ross)almost breaks free only for Frank to unload a shot gun blast into her back as a train passes..that feeling of grim damnation for those girls who wish to get away is set up by Jones. Very attractive lead actress, Cheryl Waters, went on to star in the cult film, Macon County Line. Of note, the film's official title(..a lurid title by the distributor cashing in on the rougher films on the market at the time), Schoolgirls in Chains, wasn't popular with director Jones or star Kent, and it is rather misleading..I agree with them that the European title, Abducted, is better suited for the film. When someone mentions the word, exploitation, Schoolgirls in Chains will always spring to my mind. I thought the final scene was rather superb, and it captures well the damage a horrible mother does to her children.

Mother's boys and a mummified mommy .............

[merklekranz · 6/10 · 1 October 2010]

This lurid exploitation film was originally titled "Schoolgirls in Chains", and just to be certain the audience understood they were schoolgirls, one of them is having an affair with her teacher. The movie opens with an unforgettably awful theme song, and the entire soundtrack can only be described as bizarre. Once the momma's boys appear and get down to their abduction business, you realize that this was absolutely intended for the "old men in raincoats crowd". The two sons, who are totally devoted to their mummified mommy, could best be described as Mopey and Dopey. The girls chained in the cellar are "playthings" for these two dimwits, who obviously can barely write their names in the mud with a stick. Good of it's type. - MERK

dry run for texas chainsaw massacre

[dvaergen · 8/10 · 14 May 2001]

Sadly this great often haunting B has all but disappeared and it is all the more unfortunate because it has the components of a immortal cult classic. Schoolgirls In Chains is the truly bizarre story of two brothers who kidnap and keep women locked in the cellar for the retarded brothers childishly sexual games. This very unusual film does beg comparision to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (with themes of cannibalism replaced with incest and necrophilia) and if for no other reason is significant for being one (among DeathDream, Blood and Lace and the later films of Hershell Gordon Lewis) of the darkest drive in films of the early 70s

Above most 70's trash

[MonsterVision99 · 6/10 · 24 September 2017]

A pleasant surprise.

I kinda of like it, its quite filthy, its sleazy and its cheap but well made.

I say that this is better than The Forest, I haven't seen that many Don Jones movies but this one its probably the best out of all of them.

Its not great or anything but it delivers the goods, its better than its title suggests.

Recommended for exploitation lovers, this one its quite entertaining and has some good aspects to it, very enjoyable.

Tedious but genuine Grindhouse-era Sleaze

[Flak_Magnet · 10 September 2009]

Although this Grindhouse-era sleazer is the genuine article, and features enough griminess and mysogeny to merit its title, the film's relative tameness and tediousness made for a fatiguing watch. As such, this trash is recommended only to genre completists. The women are mixed, from very hot to rather plain, and they seem to be dispatched in order of their overall sexiness. That said, however, there isn't a lot of violence here, with the majority of the encounters relegated to generic harassment and lame-o psychological domineering. The story involves a pair of backwoods brothers, whose mentally ill, incestuous mother has twisted them into dementia. After years of abuse, the brothers eventually find solace in kidnapping young women and keeping them captive in a makeshift cellar, visiting them periodically for faux-childish "playtime," which involves anything from kiddie-style doctor scenarios, unwholesome "hide-and-seek" stuff, with the brother's shooting one girl as she runs away; and miscellaneous intimidation and humiliation. There is a decent amount of nudity, but no more so than your average grindhouse flick. The dialog and scene structures are repetitive, and the story is basically a joke. In the end, this one looks fugly and sounds fugly, and you'll spend the majority of the time just admiring the 70's skin. Been there, done that, friends, and I've seen it done a whole lot better than "Schoolgirls in Chains." Unless you just have to see every entry from the sleazier end of the Grindhouse front, you can pass on this one. ---|--- Was this review helpful?

Precedes Texas Chainsaw Massacre

[saint_brett · 6/10 · 15 December 2023]

The movie's also known as 'Schoolgirls in Chains.' Are they also stored in your locker as well?

This is a Code Red release. They're on the same tier as Substance DVDs.

I'm just surfing the trailers before the feature starts. A lot of nakedness in 'SS Experiment Love Camp.' Yeah, it's what you're thinking. 'Divine Emanuelle' is strictly for R-rated perverts. 'Rica' looks like a total waste of time. 'The True Story of the Nun of Monza' is the Italian way of mocking religion. There is nothing too appealing there. All exploitation trash is for the easily pleased.

This version of 'Schoolgirls in Chain's' has retained the "schoolgirl" in its title, but my DVD cover doesn't display it. The DVD calls it only 'Girls in Chains.' That's like the Dixie Chicks dropping the Dixie part today, like the Yankee burying what's her name's brother. Now, why'd I write that down? It made no sense the next day when reading it.

Moving along, the movie introduces two slackjawed brothers who prove on their birth certificates that they're genuinely from West Virginia and struggled to graduate beyond kindergarten.

What looks like Rose from 'Dogfight' is picked up, held captive by Flea, and taken back to 'Grandmother's House.' Is that the same vehicle from 'The Car?' Or was it called 'The Hearse?' Wait a minute, they're not schoolgirls; they're grown ladies!

Three women are kept as pets locked down in a cellar. They're some sort of reserve date who didn't make the cut for 'Dogfight.' Chained up like a dog Rose is led out to the orchid to play hide-and-seek with Flea.

A twenty-second head start is cut short in the hunt, and you just know she'll be retrieved any moment now. And shazam! She tasted only two minutes of freedom before being recaptured. Silly girl. Chancing her hand with a second throw of the dice, she makes a mad dash in the daily double, only to be confronted by Block Head, the other brother. Or, Box Head, more like it. He has an anvil for a head that's made out of granite. He looks like Major Chip Hazard, with darker hair. Like the dirty, rotten yellow belly that he is, he shoots Rose in the back with a double barrel, and what they do with her remains I'm not entirely sure, as I was writing down my review and not paying attention to the screen.

The other two are degraded as Flea plays the adult version of Doctors and Nurses with them against their will, and is that Whistling Dixie music playing I detect in the background? Why don't these two overpower Flea? Kick him where it hurts, then stomp him one!

Why does this remind me of 'Tourist Trap' at times?

An unpleasant rape scene is a bit too confrontational for my liking.

If I remember correctly, isn't Box Head Chip Hazard a transsexual and dresses as his mother as the big shock at the end? Or am I confusing that with 'Tourist Trap?' I haven't watched that for a while. It's not a bad flick. Clu Gulager, wasn't it? I forget. He was a country and western singer, right? I think 'Tourist Trap' failed because of the country and western singer being the Leatherface in it.

A backstory reveals that Box Head Chip Hazard sired his own mother, and Flea is their incestual offspring, if I'm reading it right.

I wonder if Ed Gein ever got fresh with his mother. Did he make it that far, do you reckon? I only mention The Plainfield Butcher because this movie is similar to 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.' It's unusual that this was released a year before Tobe Hooper's classic, so I can't find 'Schoolgirls in Chains' guilty of ripping off Hooper's movie.

Flea scouts the college grounds in search of new pets and targets Long Tall Sally. She's the kind of girl who'd look good trampling on autumn leaves as Jack O' Lanterns rot while the sunsets. How can she be a Bonny when I just labeled her Long Tall Sally? She's easily captured by dummies using dummy techniques and then given the Barney Cousins ammonia treatment to render her unconscious, then added to the collection of pets in the cellar.

Lashing out at Flea results in her being belted around the head by Box Head Chip Hazard as a harsh reminder that family can't be trifled with. It must be a Philly brotherly love thing?

While her teacher boyfriend becomes suspicious of her absence from his bed, he starts playing detective, and it's pretty flimsy how he tracks down the whereabouts of both Long Tall Sally and the two demented siblings, or father and son?

Flea looks a bit like Steve Railsback. He's an annoying actor with that stupid hair of his. Not to mention that vacant space between his teeth. He'd be the hitchhiker from 'Texas Chainsaw' in this movie.

Getting game, Long Tall Sally deceives Flea again at hide and go seek, but Box Head Chip Hazard picks off the escapee immediately, then plays the same game inside 'Grandmother's House.' The ending is similar to 'Texas Chainsaw.' Who would have thought Ed Gein would be the influence for all these movies years later? That lonely little man inspired hundreds of actors to copy his methods and gain notoriety for his actions.

A gas station attendant comes out with the best line in the movie when he says that he's glad that the two weirdos mother is dead. It reminds me of Hal Holbrook in 'Girls Nite Out' aka 'The Scaremaker' when he says of someone passing, "Christ, I hope so." Instead of dressing as his mother, Box Head Chip Hazard only speaks like her, and he hangs himself at the end when they get sloppy.

The two candy fairies lose their composure as Long Tall Sally uses reverse psychological techniques and bests them both as her teacher boyfriend shows up to compound their downfall. A fistfight between Box Head Chip Hazard and the teacher boyfriend breaks out, and some decent punches and kicks are administered. That dude's old enough to be her father.

They had it all under control but quickly became unglued, and it all fell to pieces.

The movie ends on a disturbing note as Flea stares into the void and chants "mom" over and over, and you kind of feel sorry for the dullard.

The movie's okay, I guess.

I'm not a fan of women being held against their will.

You can watch it once, and that will do you for eternity, as I doubt you could watch it on repeat like 'The Room.'

"PSYCHO"-Inspired Forgotten Exploit Film...

[EVOL666 · 8/10 · 27 December 2007]

As many other reviewers have noted, SCHOOLGIRL IN CHAINS definitely draws parallels between other notable films such as (most obviously) PSYCHO and THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE. The title is a bit more lurid than the content would reflect, but despite the almost "made-for-TV" look of the film, there is a strong underlying current of sleaze in this well-made exploiter.

John and his slow-witted brother Frank spend their time kidnapping and keeping young women in their cellar as "pets" for various juvenile games. The brothers have a skewed vision of women based on their mother's teachings that all young, pretty women are "evil". John's strong, incestuous ties to his mother keep him from ever nurturing a "normal" relationship with a woman, and Frank's mental-deficiencies do the same. The brother's little "harem" is eventually exposed when the duo kidnap a psychology student who is having an affair with a professor. The professor finds a clue after his lover's abduction and puts the pieces together to track the abductors back to their lair...

Though the title SCHOOLGIRLS IN CHAINS may bring to mind images of top-heavy vixens in S&M scenarios - the film itself is actually quite different. It's a well-made and pretty well-acted slice of grindhouse style cinema that is carried more by its implied "nastiness" as opposed to a lot of graphic sex or violence. To be sure, there are some "strong" scenes in the film - but although there are depictions of rape, murder, abuse and heavy incest themes - none of these aspects are portrayed very graphically. Personally, I would have preferred the film to be a bit more "explicit", but even without extremely graphic depictions of the aforementioned acts, the film works well on most levels. There are some genuinely creepy scenes, and I found that the score, which often contained odd renditions of children's songs (used especially when Frank was "playing" with the girls - thus mirroring his childishness) was fitting and dark. The pacing is also well done, as the film itself never really gets dull. Overall, a solid exploit entry that handles the sleazy content with a serious tone - worth a look to exploit fans as it's also a seemingly rare find of a film...8/10

A choice filthy chunk of vintage 70's drive-in sleaze

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 8 January 2009]

Sullen, reserved Frank (excellently played with brooding intensity by Gary Kent, who also doubled as the movie's production manager) and his retarded, infantile brother John (a genuinely creepy portrayal by John Stoglin) are a couple of severely misogynistic wackos who get their sick kicks abducting lovely young ladies and holding them hostage in the dingy basement of their remote countryside home. Of course, the decidedly unwholesome sibling pair treat said gals like complete animals and play all sorts of depraved games with them (John in particular likes to play twisted adult versions of doctor and leapfrog with the girls). Writer/director Donald M. Jones does a bang-up job of creating and sustaining a dark, grim, and seamy tone that never lets up for a minute and stays bitterly true to itself right until the perfectly depressing bummer ending. While not that graphic, this film still manages to cast a powerfully bleak and unsettling spell because of its unsparingly harsh and gloomy oppressive atmosphere: A pervasive sense of foul dread and unease hangs heavy throughout like some kind of wretched invisible fog. The uniformly sound acting from the capable cast helps out a whole lot: Veteran B-movie thespian Kent delivers a bravura characterization as a soft-spoken psycho who's prone to frightening sudden mood swings, "Macon County Line" 's Cheryl Waters (Cheryl appears in this flick under the pseudonym Leah Tate), Merrie Lynn Ross (Perry King's pregnant wife in "Class of 1984"), and Suzanne Lund are solid and credible as the brothers' hapless and scared victims, Stafford Morgan does well as likable college professor hero Robert Matthews, and Stoglin makes your skin crawl with his full-bore lunacy as the single most unnervingly unbalanced man-child fruitcake this side of Sid Haig in "Spider Baby." Jones' script covers all the necessary slimy bases: We've got rape (the scene with Frank forcing himself sexually on one of the ladies is pretty ugly and upsetting stuff), nudity, incest, perversion, voyeurism, soft-core sex, and cold-blooded murder. Ron Garcia's rough, yet lively cinematography gives the picture a properly grainy and unpolished look. Josef Powell's offbeat score neatly alternates between groovy jazz and droning atonal weirdness. Highly recommended viewing for 70's exploitation cinema buffs.