Watch The Undertaker and His Pals For Free

Did you people see the same film I saw?

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Nicely daft horror comedy with a nice dose of gore, straight from the middle of the sixties! Three motorcyclists seemingly select a victim at random, go to her house and stab her with knives before removing her legs. The victim's parents are then fleeced for cash by the local undertaker, but what connection does he have to the killings? And who are the two sinister guys at the local diner who have taken an interest in PI Harry Glass's assistant? It's up to Harry to get to the bottom of things, although in the end he doesn't do too much.Full of gore (Hatchets through heads, a Fulci style chain whipping way before Don't Torture a Duckling, an acid bath)and bad humour (the 'meals' served at the diner, the Benny Hill style slapstick), plus buxom sixties babes, the Undertaker and His Pals is a prime slice of cheese served up with sly wink and is a treat for bad movie fans. The end credits say it all man.

Now don't get me wrong. There are amazing big budget movies obviously. There's nothing wrong with only liking well produced movies. But, if you can't appreciate this movie for what it is, your not a fan of cinema (in general). Your probably more of a fan of well produced cinema. There's really nothing wrong with this movie. It doesn't pretend to be anything that it isn't. It's a bad, low budget, goofy slasher flick. At times it is actually funny (in my opinion) like towards the end when the undertaker is chasing "Thursday" up the same staircase over and over again. And this movie is pretty brutal and graphic for its time. Like the live surgery scene. My final thought is, if you rate this movie less than 5 stars or consider it "a waste of life and time" why did you watch it in the first place? You knew what you were getting into. Stick to the matrix or avatar or whatever your really are into and quit wining about the crappy movie that no one forced you to watch.

This very well may be the first slasher film ever made, and the really weird thing, it is also the first parody of a slasher film ever made.Therein lies a real social-historical problem: how can the film effectively creating the genre at the same time parody the genre, which doesn't come into existence until the film is released? First, a qualification: What makes a slasher film is extremely graphic gratuitous violence against helpless women, using a long knife as preferred weapon.Arguably, the real "first" of the genre may have been "Psycho"; but "Psycho" was an exceptional film, and stands out from most of the rest of the genre. And it's in black & white, while a true slasher film requires blood-glaring color (which "Undertaker" has, and remarkably well-kept for its age). I prefer to think of "Psycho" as a precursor.But "Undertaker" is, first of all, nothing special as a film. (It's just low-budget drive-in fodder, intended to be ignored by the teen-agers necking in the back seat.) Secondly, it takes sadistic-voyeur pleasure in showing us the violence and the blood. Finally, it shows self-consciousness concerning the sadistic-voyeurism, meaning that it is intended to appeal to the very worst instincts in its target audience.And that makes it pure genre film - well, almost.As I said, it is also a parody of this genre - in the most outrageous way. The sales pitch the undertaker offers potential customers is genuinely amusing, and the killers repeatedly debunk themselves as silly mad-scientist types that only happen to run a failing diner. What's going on here? There can be only one answer, logically: the film-makers here are actually parodying another genre film.Perhaps "Psycho" can help us out here, after all. It must be remembered that a major influence on Hitchcock's's film was the motel sequence in Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil". That episode was itself influenced by the '50s "JD" (juvenile delinquent) films that frequently had middle-class suburban families found suddenly in the grip of a punk or a gang of young punks (the most famous being Brando's "The Wild One"). And the JD film was itself a clear off-shoot from the standard B-movie crime-thriller of the early '50s, which is simply a sub-genre of the "police procedural" (e.g., "Dragnet").So, what "Undertaker" is really spoofing here is the police procedural.So the indirect progenitor of the slasher film is - Jack Webb's "Dragnet". That's a little unsettling, but true.At any rate, I'm not a big fan of slasher films, and I only watched this film a second time because it is, so clearly, an historical oddity. And it's real weird that directors like Welles and Webb (who have nothing else in common but this) should, in trying to explore the social significance of socio-pathic crime, point the way for audiences to enjoy such violence voyeuristically in the slasher film. That's cause for reflection.Which makes "Undertaker", if only for history's sake, a very, very weird little film.Not recommended for enjoyment, but a must-see for film-history buffs.

This film does at least have pretensions of having a plot. That's about the best that can be said about it.Badly written, badly acted, badly directed, and even the video quality (at least on the example I viewed) was blurry and grainy. It looks like it was shot with a home video camera. Hell, it probably was.I'm looking for bright spots here, and I'm struggling to think of any. I guess one or two of the girl actresses weren't that awful. I guess if you like looking at either the insides of a cow or pig or a clip from a stolen surgical film, you've got that for about 5 seconds. If your sense of humor hasn't progressed beyond thinking that sawing the legs off of a girl named Sally Lamb and serving them up to customers in a diner as "leg of lamb" is totally hilarious, I guess you've got that.Otherwise, you do have what is pretty much invariably true: those who adopt brutality as a way of life almost always find that sooner or later, it takes them to a bad end.Unfortunately, this movie isn't even a good kind of bad... it's just crap.Since IMDb doesn't allow you to specify 0 for a vote, I reluctantly have to give this film a 1.