This odd attempt to create a sort of naturalistic two-character drama is thus closest to Milligan's first film, "Vapors," being more indebted to early, earnest indie arthouse models than the genre conventions he otherwise tried to graft his unique form of no-budget hysteria onto. So it's offbeat, particularly within his ouevre. However, that means even more than usual, the actors are dependent on their director's weird, garrulous dialogue and his equally off-kilter ideas about human psychology. So this tale of an attractive London woman who takes in a handsome but helpless homeless boy alternates between the dull and the arbitrary.

The actors manage as well as they can with characters undefined in the writing, not to mention scenes that go nowhere, serving no purpose but to pad the runtime until something finally happens. And that "something" is that, out of nowhere (yet somehow predictably),one character turns out to be "evil" and destructive because, apparently, that's the only way Milligan can conceive of that entire gender. Frankly, if the script was going to go in that direction, it should have done so much sooner, which at least would have provided some semblance of plot tension.

While obviously made on the barest of shoestrings--even by Milligan standards--the movie is perhaps most interesting if you try to imagine just who he, or anyone, thought it might be 'for." Did the director somehow manage to impress some very gullible Brit as an auteur? More likely they hoped he was making a sexploitation movie, which the thin story indeed does suggest it will become, but it's terribly chaste, unless you count the hero frequently having his shirt off. (And god knows that's not the toplessness grindhouse viewers were looking for in 1970.) There are several bizarre moments where it's hinted that poor man is made to perform oral sex on the heroine, and of course Milligan suggests this is a thing of indescribable perversity and horror. But that just underlines that the movie is not only prudish, it's downright anti-sex. As for violence, well, there just isn't any.

I'd always been curious to see "Nightbirds," so at least this can now be checked off the bucket list. But if you've seen excerpts, trust me, you've seen enough. It is not a movie that suggests Milligan was wasted on cheesy horror films, but instead confirms that his having to make cheesy horror films was probably the best possible thing for a sensibility whose eccentric neptitude and myopia were doomed to make any less daft material simply tedious.

Those familiar with the films of Andy Milligan will hardly be able to recognize "Nightbirds" as his, because it contains few of the Milligan trademarks fans have come to love and expect. It looks like Andy was going for something very different here, something more serious and artistic..and he manages nicely, this tale of two very maladjusted young people, who meet "by chance" on the streets of London's East End. The coolly beautiful "Dee" comes off as warm and friendly to the homeless "Dink..." almost TOO friendly, as she invites him to live with her only hours after meeting him. The two blonde lovers settle into a domestic arrangement inside Dee's rooftop artists loft, but soon things begin to change, as a subtle, psychological power struggle ensues between the two young, but insecure kids. As the story progresses, it becomes quite clear that Dee has some very strange notions about love and relationships. It also becomes clear that she is a very disturbed woman. This is a slow film, but with a surprising conclusion that is definitely worth the wait. At times Milligan creates the illusion that the film is going nowhere, but the big reveal at the end is truly blood chilling. The casting choice was brilliant; the actress who plays Dee has the frigid look of an ice princess, with her white blonde hair and her icy, pale blue eyes. She is beautiful but there is something threatening and diabolical about her. Milligan fans will recognize Dink as "Spool," the forlorn hunchback from "The Body Beneath." In "Nightbirds" Berwick Kaler looks similarly pathetic and insecure. His character is a virgin with no self esteem, on top of being homeless. He is exactly the kind of desperate soul that Dee is drawn to, for reasons that i won't divulge. Shot in haunting black and white, and enhanced by a moody flute jazz soundtrack, "Nightbirds" is a recommended watch for anyone interested in the work of Andy Milligan. It's interesting to see a side to this film maker that is so different from the style that made him the King of no-budget grindhouse cinema. Danish director Nicholas Refn saw enough value in this film to basically bring it back to life, after being considered a lost film for decades. This fan hopes that more of Milligan's lost movies will be rediscovered.

I've long read that this is one of Andy Milligan's most uncharacteristic works, but I was nonetheless quite stunned by what I saw. The gritty drama (one of several films he made in Britain) follows the relationship between Dee (Julie Shaw) and Dink (Berwick Kaler),two London hippies living in squalor. The film's themes are consistent with Milligan's horror output, but the execution is on an entirely different level. While I love the campy misanthropy and handcrafted Grand Guignol excesses of his horror films, there's no denying that Milligan did not have a natural eye for composition. To put it bluntly he could also be quite sloppy, careless, and just plain artless in his capacities as a cinematographer. Here, however, the grittiness of Milligan's style (or perhaps anti-style would be more accurate) is especially suited to its subject matter. At the same time, his camera-work here is also far more disciplined than usual, with some surprisingly pleasing compositions and (dare I say it) some astonishing visual metaphors. The dialogue certainly has its share of mean-spirited stingers, but generally it's more restrained, naturalistic, and at times quite poetic. As a result this drama of seduction and psychological abuse proves to be quite poignant. Special mention must be made of the two lead actors, who play their parts quite convincingly. Shaw is particularly memorable as the sociopathic Dee; in one chilling moment, after she sends away Dink's only friend (a maternal figure called Mabel) with a series of venomous profanities, we see her mask her sadistic glee with a caring look as she goes back to nursing the injured Dink. Overall it's an impressive work across the board, and shows us a side of Milligan too rarely indulged in his films - perhaps one closer in spirit to his gritty theatrical work.