Excellent, Without a doubt!!
A bit overrated, but still an amazing film
Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.
View MoreIt is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film
View MorePoor Lisa Foster (Raines)who is now a 48 year old highly regarded and successful movie writer, technician and producer. She was barely (excuse the pun) 18 when she made this sex romp. She has changed her name and is variously reported as hailing from England or Canada, depending on which source is consulted. No doubt all of this ambiguity is designed to hide the fact that this beautiful, elegant and successful movie producer (see her bio here on IMDb) made this porn film back in 1982 when she was a teenager. And what a gorgeous display, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination, it is! I agree with all of the reviewers who have said what a beautiful form she casts. Cleland's novel calls for a virginal 15 year old girl of nubile proportions and Lisa fits the description perfectly.Where I part company, however, with other reviewers, is the somewhat guilt-ridden insistence of some that this movie is "not pornography", since it is true to the 1790's novel. Hogwash. Cleland's novel is pure pornography, designed solely to titillate the reader. This movie also more than fulfils that singular purpose. She is naked for significant periods of time in the movie precisely because of the erotic purpose. It fulfils no different purpose than a skin magazine. The only difference, of course, is that the viewer is blessed with seeing a beautiful 18 year old woman in her natural glory without any plastic adornments or alterations. Lisa Foster(Raines) regrets this totally. The rest of us do not.
View MoreWhen I chanced upon FANNY HILL at the local DVD rental shop, I only had a vague notion of either this version existing or of what the "classic" novel was about but since American sexploitation maverick Russ Meyer had made it into an intriguing movie himself back in 1964, I figured it was a bawdy period romp and, since I had been in a costume picture state-of-mind for a while now, I decided to give it a spin.The presence of three veteran film stars (Oliver Reed, Shelley Winters and Wilfrid Hyde-White) was also enticing but, unsurprisingly, they are only there for marquee value: Reed's almost incoherent Popeye-ish accent is simply embarrassing, likewise watching flabby madam Winters being surrounded by all that petite naked flesh (not hers, of course, but that of her charges and their consorts) flailing about, but it's octagenarian Hyde-White (in his last film, no less) who tops both of them by snuggling in bed with the title character who is all of 19 years of age; I've seen Hyde-White in several of his earlier films and I'm positive he never performed a love scene in any of them! Indeed, it's gorgeous leading lady Lisa Foster who, thankfully, indulges in much full-frontal nudity by shedding her clothing completely at every possible opportunity which, even in the heavily-censored variant I've watched, makes this consistently raunchy period piece tolerable; it's a pity that she didn't get much ahead in her acting career as one would certainly have liked to see even more of her. Interestingly enough, she later switched to doing animation work and was also involved in the digital restoration of Walt Disney's SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)! The orphaned innocent Fanny Hill soon falls in with some ladies of ill-repute as she reaches London to better her prospects, and is immediately instructed in what is expected of her by a more experienced companion Phoebe (Maria Harper) by jumping into bed with her, and later spying on their fellow co-workers in action through hidden holes in the wall BELLE DE JOUR (1967)-style! In fact, the film's plot line is very similar to that of Jess Franco's MARQUIS DE SADE'S JUSTINE (1968) and it's small wonder that the producer of that one, Harry Alan Towers, is also behind this production but, while I'd say FANNY HILL is a more agreeable picture, ultimately it's just too blandly made to stick in one's mind for much longer after it's finished.
View MoreI had the opportunity to read John Cleland's book last week, and I could not put it down. What a fantastic book, my imagination ran absolutely wild, and when I found out that a movie had been made, through IMDb, off I went in search of a DVD. Just finished watching it. I was not disappointed at all. I just cannot believe that it was made over twenty years ago.What's so good? So much of what I saw in the movie, was what I imagined when reading the book. OK, so Lisa Foster looks older than what Fanny is supposed to be in the book, but apart from this, I did not imagine Fanny to be much different. She is a very good and beautiful actress, with or without her clothes on, and I felt she acted according to the requirements of the part, which called for a sense of naughty innocence. A lot of the sets, the scenery, the costume, were what I imagined them to be. OK, you have to put up with the silliness of the established actors like Oliver Reed, Shelley Winter and Wilfrid Hyde-White. These guys were good, don't get me wrong, but the real star is Lisa Foster, no doubt about this, she clearly carried the movie very well. I am just surprised that she has not appeared in more movies.I am not sure how to categorize this movie. With the amount of nudity involved, it should probably be classed as an erotic movie, but the nudity is always so tastefully done, without a hint of pornography, and there is no unnecessary nudity.I am impressed with what I have seen. A good and extremely sexy actress, good acting, good sets and photography, good plot, good fun. It is erotic, but not pornographic, I watched it with my wife, she actually got the video! And she too enjoyed it.
View MoreWow, what a good and entertaining movie! A great movie. The first thing that comes to most people's mind is the erotic nature of the movie, with lots of sex and nudity. They would not be wrong, with lots of sexual implications, male and female nudity, and sometimes quite explicit, but this is not a hardcore movie. And in Lisa (Raines) Foster, an extremely beautiful actress. But let's look at the whole movie.First, the story, from John Cleland's once banned (and still is in some countries) book has a good story, and probably had some truth in his days. A young girl coming to misfortune after the death of her parents, eventually finding happiness.Second, the film itself was well shot, well lit, good scenery, with a good accuracy of the period, follows quite well the spirit of the novel. Well done.Third, actors and actresses. Well known stars such as Oliver Reed, Shelley Winter, Wilfred Hyde-White) contributed interesting characters, I guess to give gravitas to the movie to the relative unknown star, Lisa (Raines) Foster and to encourage cinema goers. I have not seen anything she has done apart from this role, and I thought she was excellent, and I am not referring to the nudity, which is not shocking, although she is extremely beautiful with a very pretty and well defined face, great eyes. It seems to me that she could act, she was serious, she was funny, involved, emotional. She clearly carried the movie, and did not need the stars (although they were amusing) It is a pity that she has not acted in more roles after this. I see in her IMDb entry that she has left acting and now into directing, well done. Does anyone know her email? I would certainly like to wish her luck.I believe that this movie has been a good contribution to the erotic genre. Over twenty years old and it still captures my imagination and attention. I have bought the DVD and so should you.
View More