nightair86 Poor 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.

Marcia Pratt This version, or at least, my copy, has been censored, I am sure about it. Despite this, it contains so much nudity, especially from the very sexy Lisa Foster, that it should have come with a health warning, in a positive manner, mind you. My heart rate increased every time Lisa undresses, or suggest that she would undress.I read the book some months back in my book club, probably because of its notorious reputation, but mainly because we needed controversial material for discussion. I enjoyed it immensely, both from the literature perspective and an erotic perspective. And then I watched the movie, again with my book club. My apprehension that movies generally don't live up to books (apart from Lord of the Rings), especially an adaptation of an erotic novel, soon evaporated. OK, much 'entertainement license' was taken when making the movie. OK, some of the acting, especially from the established stars were much exaggerated for their characters. See beyond these, and you will see a rather good movie, with a nice story line, sets, scenery, plots and some excellent acting from Lisa Foster, the lead and real star.There are a few things that needs to be said about Lisa Forster, and this are not what I feel, but what my club member also thought and agreed. First, she is a very good actress. She is not just about taking her clothes off, which she does very often. This girl can act, emotion, laughter, naughtiness, deviousness. I think those of her fans are surprised that she did not go on to do more, a little stereotyping going on perhaps? Second, she is extremely beautiful, very pretty face, very sexy body that has nothing out of place, and everything in great proportion. She does does show off her body, completely nude or just topless, a lot in the movie, but never out of context. The nudity, and not just from Lisa, are all necessary and tasteful, nothing pornographic, and the amount is not overwhelming.For all of my fellow members, the movie made the book so much more interesting and, put things into perspective, or bring a book to life. Wonderful stuff!

Amoson Tuckinon Wow, 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.

Jackson Booth-Millard I can't remember seeing the entire film, or the reason for the rather amusing sexual sounding title, but I do remember that there were a couple of good moments of female nudity and sex. Oliver Reed starred in it somewhere, but he obviously wasn't my concern when I saw it. I only cared about it because of the amusing named title, and the mention of quite a few sexual references. There are no scenes I can really remember that well, but I think there was one where two girls are seeing many people have sex through their above windows. I did not see any of Oliver Reed as far as can remember, but I don't think this is his type of film anyway. Okay!