Wonderfully offbeat film!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The original, theater and maybe VHS, were excellent. I have bought two different DVDs of this movie and both were horrible TV versions. The first was from Amazon (Passion Productions, 98 minutes (?) and no nudity or language and the color was orange like from a really old film that hadn't been taken of. The BN (Platinum) had much better color (90 minutes) but it was about the same "cut to death" version losing the kids working on nudity and bleeped language that is on TV today. One really great lesson that hasn't been mentioned is Tenhousen's (sp?), James Whitmore, teaching, "People only recognize an action as love when it is the same kind of love that they give." I learned something from that and I have run across many real life examples to support that observation. I would still like to get a DVD that was the theater version that I saw but I don't know how I would recognize the version after being burned twice.

A review that came before me listed top 10 unintentionally funny moments in the film, which I am going to reiterate/add to. It is the only way to truly enjoy the film. Don't read this if you actually want to experience these priceless moments freshly for yourself.1. The opening credits tree hug.2. "You don't need to lose any weight."/"Neither do you!" (Then the two kiss passionately)3. Make-out scene simultanously occurring as a conversation about stamp collecting takes place. By the same people.4. The fashion and hair!5. Don Johnson repeatedly in scenes with massive pit stains, without any trace of pre-occurring hard labor. (And then he proceeds to make out with whoever is there.)6. The redhead girl saying "That was wonderful!" to her roommate, after he punches Stanley after he walked in catching her making out with Stanly.7. The music really is overly dramatic. Both the score and the acoustic guitar-laden ballads with priceless 70's lyrics, one song sung by Don Johnson himself!Good points in film:1. Don Johnson in wonderfully tight clothes and sometimes without them.2. The enjoyment coming from the whole 70's aesthetic and seeing a story line unfold that is so foreign to our 21st century minds.3. A way of looking at the feeling of jealousy, and dealing with it, that isn't really presented anymore. I decided to shed some of my own hard feelings regarding relationships after some reconsideration prompted by this film.

The 1970's brought the movie rating system. The system allowed both nudity and overt sexuality into American films. Hollywood was trying to capture the youth market in a way they never had. This led to a number of "hip" youth low budget oriented movies. Some tried to capture a moments in time such as "The Trip". Some worked only as satire such as "The Seniors". Some tried social commentary as "The Harrad Experiment". All had common dominators: young people, sex and skin.Some hold up as a time capsule, "The Trip". Some as a silly nudie farce, "The Seniors". And some are just dull. "The Harrad Experiment" falls into this category. What was shocking to one generation, such as "The Chapman Report" and "Peyton Place", becomes boringly silly to future ones.It's not a bad film, its just a dumb film. Still, if you are interested in seeing youngish Tippi Hedren in bra and panties or a very young Don Johnson's backside; it's worth a look. Just remember, you've been warned.

The fictional Harrad is a privately endowed auxiliary college where students attend classes at recognized schools (the acronym HARRAD comes from Harvard-Radcliff), but attend Harrad's human values seminars and live with roommates of the opposite sex.I first saw `The Harrad Experiment' (rated `R') as a teenager, in 1973. The film was not only entertaining but, like many other teenagers, the story seriously impacted my life. I immediately dumped my boyfriend and made a pledge to never again be dominated or told what to do by a lover. Thanks to this picture, I chose a man who was able to deal with his jealousies and now our children are viewing this amazing film on video. While the 1973 film may seem dated and sluggish by '90s standards, today's teenagers are rediscovering Robert Rimmer's college manifesto of the '60s and finding that its philosophical views may be even more relevant in today's far more sexually up-tight society.Last weekend, my eighteen-year-old daughter played a VHS copy of the film for her sorority sisters. The heated discussion that followed ran the gamut from embracing the, liberal, avant-garde ideology of Robert Rimmer's philosophy to the conservative position condemning the film as sophisticated porn.Videos of the film are traded from college student to college student, much like the original novel. Whereas the novel was merely a free love manifesto, the film takes a slightly different approach. The film version concentrates more on the reduction of jealousy, which can be destructive in a relationship. The experiment attempts to accomplish this by requiring students to live in a dorm where they are assigned roommates of the opposite sex. The added wrinkle is that the roommates must change partners every thirty days. Little wonder that the film has become a cult classic.Today many college dorms are co-ed. That is, rooms occupied by male and female are on the same floor, with some such rooms going so far as to share bathroom facilities. However, as we enter the new millennium the concept of being assigned attractive roommates of the opposite sex is even further from reality that it was when the film was first released.I believe that the film's phenomenal boxoffice success is not due to the so-called Harrad philosophy but to a strong story, fleshed out characters and, of course, to the sex appeal of Don Johnson, in one of his best roles. However, as mentioned above, the film seems dated by today's quick cut, fast paced standards and suffers from budgetary limitations (I understand it was made for under $200,000). Its sequel, `Harrad Summer,' (rated `PG') made on a slightly higher budget, has much slicker production values, is faster paced, but is far less titillating (no pun intended). While I understand the sequel did solid boxoffice business (Variety summed up the film's grosses by stating, `Gidget goes to college; gets A +'), it lacks Don Johnson and bends over backwards to avoid the controversy of its predecessor.I cannot help feeling that perhaps it's time for an updated remake. The possibilities are limitless.