Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Robbins Judge There seems to be some interest in this old tale, with the relatively recent BBC drama staring Rebecca Night, which was well made, even though it was devoid of the erotic content of the John Cleland work that I got my hands on soon after. Having caught the Fanny Hill bug, a quick search on a well known on-line retailer, a few purchases and I soon had in my possession two DVDs of two different Fanny Hill productions. One stars Cheryl Dempsey in a Valentine Palmer production, and the other is this production starting Lisa Raines. I am impressed by both, but let's focus on this.Much of what I had thought of writing in this review have been written by many other reviewers here already, so I shall not repeat, criticise nor support. This production is an extremely good production of an extremely explicit erotic novel. It is done with brilliant details of the period, tackling erotically explicit subjects in good humour, and without turning it into a pornographic movie, which it could easily have done. Of course there are naked people, and some scenes can be explicit but not in a hard-core manner, this is, after all, a movie of Fanny Hill, but I don't feel that any nudity was uncalled for.There are some well known actors in the movie, notably Oliver Reed, Wilfred Hyde-White and Shirley Winters, but they were in the movie as mere characters, and I did not feel they were particularly good in the movie, perhaps simply to provide gravitas? The star is the unknown, and sadly, still unknown Lisa Raines Foster. An extremely pretty girl, and a surprising good actress. I didn't think I would say so, but she did carry the movie. Having read the book, and seen the BBC version before watching this movie, I thought Lisa Raines Foster made this movie a memorable one. OK, the cynics amongst you would say that I am swayed by the nudity, by the numerous full-frontal nude scenes of a beautiful woman. To a point, yes, she is very very sexy. But thinking for a moment, this has not been the reason. Lisa Raines Foster is a very good actress. She could act, with or without her clothes on, her smiles, her eye expressions made me feel her feelings, and this is special. It is such a shame she has not made more movies.Overall, a thoroughly enjoyable movie.

MARIO GAUCI When 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.

John Clay I 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.

ajji-2 I for one, had a great time with this raunchy film, ever since i first saw it on video back in 1989 (and uncut, to boot!). It was among the first adult films i saw, and even though i've seen many more since, it remains a favorite. Even though it hardly retains any shock value today, it still rises above many so-called erotic thrillers from Hollywood. Lisa Foster is absolutely gorgeous, and there are many scenes with sex and nudity to please all but the most hardened viewer. Plus, it's all done with humor and tongue firmly in cheek (among other places).Of course, it isn't a perfect film. Some of the comedy seems a bit forced, and there are a few scenes where the direction seems to be too chaste rather than risqué, which is odd for this kind of film (as in Fanny's initial couplings with her prince charming). But the film makes up for it in other scenes.I don't know about the rest of the world, but this was hugely popular over here in the days of VHS. I have been waiting for a DVD release, and finally i see a DVD on Netflix. but since i don't have access to Netflix, i don't know if this is the full uncut version, or if it is pan-and-scan, etc. if someone can tell me for sure, i'd be really grateful.