ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

bonnierae I'm Tacey Robbins' cousin, but that isn't the reason I'm giving this movie the highest rating I can. It compares very favorably to Drive-In type movies of the same era, and was filmed on about one-tenth the budget. It's fun to watch on a number of levels: A great look at mid-1960's culture, a pretty good thriller-type story line, and Tacey Robbins' great voice. And she's pretty easy on the eyes, too! People interested in seeing this movie should be aware that John Carradine does not appear in it. Bits and pieces of "Psycho-A-Go-Go" were cannibalized over the years and randomly spliced into several other movies. This film was, in fact, lost completely until the company Troma took the trouble to edit it back to what it looked like when originally released in 1965.

Uriah43 This film is clearly dated to an interesting time in American history. Notice the hairstyles on both the men and the women and the type of cars everybody drove. You don't see those anymore. At any rate, the reason I bring these things up is because I think that in order to understand or enjoy this film a person has to appreciate the time-frame in which it was made. Whether it's the songs by "Linda Clark" (Tacey Robbins) or the nightclub atmosphere, there is something in this movie that probably makes no sense unless you've seen it firsthand. Now, don't get me wrong, this film is not a very good picture. Other than the performance of Roy Morton (as the psycho "Joe Corey") and the presence of the "go-go dancers" at the very beginning, I found most of the film to be quite routine and dull. Even so, this film exemplifies what a B-movie looked like back in the mid-60's and that's the standard by which it should be judged. So, people who see it now might think it's a lousy movie compared to films of today. And it probably is if you compare it today's standards. But I think we need to keep things in perspective. In short, while this movie is probably a bit below average, it isn't as bad as the score most people have given it. Neither is this movie one that will suit everyone's taste. For that reason I recommend it only for those who can understand and appreciate films from this period and are willing to make allowances.

Nullness I'm a fan of Psycho a Go-Go, and Al Adamson in general, though his films can be hit or miss at best. Psycho a Go-Go is about middleground for him, not as dreadfully incoherent as Blood of Dracula's Castle, not as existential and apocalyptic as Satan's Sadists. Yet "Psycho" can at times reach the weirdness of a David Lynch movie (Blue Velvet comes to mind), and at other times the "coolness" level of Tarantino's overrated Pulp Fiction. Here we have thin-tied gangsters in black zoot suits, dames in beehive hair with lounge voices, the catchy but surreal siren call of go-go song and dance, a chipmunk-voiced black doll, and a killer who is a cross between a young Jack Nicholson and Michael Ironside, with an ugly butch haircut and an uglier mind. The scene where he sadistically strangles a girl, intercut with the blinking neon blue lights of a seedy motel sign, is unquestionably a work of art, or at least of high imitation.A decent genre flick without the pretensions of its later imitators, and a portal into the weird dark world of Los Angeles.

chris miller here's the thing about this movie, and movies of its kind - they have to be judged on a different scale. there's no way anyone should compare a movie like this to "citizen kane" or, to a greater extent, "gone with the wind" because those are epic films with a lot more money backing the project. this isn't even a "b" studio film, it's an indie flick and, therefore, should be judged accordingly. the soundtrack has very little to do with the ebb and flow of the film, the directing and editing are amateurish, but not horrible, the acting is over-the-top in almost every instance (though roy morton has a good performance as a super-sleazy sex-driven criminal) and the color is garish. but all these things create a certain 60s "b-film" aesthetic that you can choose to like or dislike. if you're willing to go along for the ride then this film can provide some entertainment, if you're not then steer clear. while most aspects of the film are just average and add to the b grade aesthetic, the cinematography is noteworthy. considering the source, the cinematography stands out as rather good. unfortunately the dvd transfer puts the film in full frame, but one still gets the impression that the cinematographer knew what he was doing. who is the cinematographer? vilmos zsigmond, winner of an academy award for cinematography for his work on the deer hunter. he also worked on flesh and blood with verhoven, blow out and bonfire of the vanities with depalma, mccabe and mrs. miller with altman, and close encounters with spielberg. as for the story - it's a typical heist gone wrong tale with a nice touch here and there; not half bad. C.