|Index||7 reviews in total|
23 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
The Touchables 1968. A good year for UK cinema, 31 March 2005
Author: digi-6 from United Kingdom
It is true to say that this movie is not good, to say the least. But it
does capture some of the craziness of the time.1968 was a very good
time to be young & living in London, as I was. I also worked on the
dubbing of this movie at Shepperton Film Studios. It still brings back
good memories of the time & I wouldn't be without a copy, which took me
a long time to find. The girls in the movie were quite well known at
the time, one of them became the late Peter Cook's second wife, & all
of them were attractive. David Anthony The mail lead was also an icon
of the time, with many girls pinning his picture to their bedroom wall.
The Dome in the film was built at Frencham Ponds in Surrey & there is
nothing of it left.
In many ways the movie depicts the beginnings of women asserting themselves & being seen to be in control of their lives in a much more controlled way than the previous generation. The plot is simple; four girls capture a pop star & have their wicked way with him. There are other influences in the movie with gangsters & a well known wrestler of the time. What is immediately striking is that all the girls speak good English with educated accents, something that is sadly lacking in English movies of this type today. This movie is not an icon, as in "Wonderwall" for example, but it does have something.
10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
very pretty....pretty bad!, 15 December 2009
Author: nickrogers1969 from Sweden
All my life I've been mad about 60's mod films. I just love movies from
the 60's with loads of cool clothes and style. I thought I knew about
most of them until I just recently found out about "The Touchables",
which is just all mod style. So much so, that there's almost no plot at
all. The clothes and the visuals are fantastic but it all just seems to
be a bunch advertisements strung together, one after the other.
After a while I almost lost interest since it was almost too much style. The girls are very pretty but, apart from the dark one, all of them are very uninteresting (and quite bad actors to boot!). The prettyboy pop star is almost better than them combined!
The real star of the film is the absolutely AMAZING gigantic bubble house they reside in. That knocked me out and makes this film worth watching again! The set design should have won awards!!!!
How come this film is so unknown? I gather that this film was not a hit at the time but to be so forgotten is strange... Does anyone know?
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
For late 60's clothing and makeup tips...., 28 October 2009
Author: U.N. Owen from NYC
You can't spoil giving anything away. The plot's thinner than a paper
towel. From the opening, pre-credit scene, you quickly realise that
whoever directed this..'film' was using his 'direction' as a
chick-magnet. Well, the women who...'star,' can't act. But they're
really good at applying eye makeup and posing (well, the posing's a
little bit tired) The male star- Christian- the 'rock' boy is a really
good looking, pouty-lipped, (but with an annoying adenoidal lower class
voice/accent, that's grating even if that turns you on) late 60's
quintessential pop star (though this one, David Anthony- didn't have
any songs out, or at least any hits, or...well, he's very cute (and
does seem a bit 'light in the loafers).
This movie's one of those you can watch in fast forward. You won't miss any plot (it's just a lot of bad pop art in the background, like Faux - Warhollian type stuff, Jimi Hendrix psychedelic posters- and Jimi WAS alive at this time),Chiquita bananas, with the girls cavorting for the camera. The best set is the AWESOME gigantic bubble where half the movie takes place in. I WANT THIS BUBBLE (and David Anthony)!
I'm gonna agree with John Seal, and what he said in 1999. This movie's...BAD. Just watch it in fast forward, look at the pretty boy, pretty girls, and then you're done.
Remember this was an X rated flick back then, so it's really like a bad Benny Hill, in terms of the TITillations-wink wink.
Not very good, 9 January 2011
Author: rebob60 from United States
In 1978, I was living in Lincoln, NE where the cable system there would play B rated movies scheduling them to play twice a day for a week. I watched The Touchables six times that week. It hardly made any sense at all, though I did like the Pink Floyd Interstellar Overdrive during the boat on the lake scene. I still remember how cool it was to see everybody pile out of the car that had the front door on the entire front of the car. The movie was actually quite awful as they were holding the boxer hostage at the glass dome house. I was lost during that part of the movie. I kept watching the movie for a glimpse of something that never materialized. Yet, I still want to watch it today to see if I had missed anything.
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Only in the 1960s could this have been made!, 31 July 2010
Author: Wayne Malin (firstname.lastname@example.org) from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This film begins with four girls stealing a wax figure of Michael Caine
from a wax museum! Then it gets strange... Totally bizarre movie about
four girls who live in a large see-through plastic done (!!!) in the
countryside outside England. They kidnap singer Christian (David
Anthony), strip him down to his underpants, tie him to the bed and
start having fun. After a while they untie him and he joyfully starts
playing games with them and having sex (!!!!) Also there's the truly
terrible fashions on the 1960s; some truly horrendous music; drugged
out visuals and some wrestling matches (with a gay black wrestler named
Mr. Lillywhite)!!! That should tell you everything you need to know
It is truly terrible movie but you can't stop watching. There's always something strange happening and had dialogue that had me rolling my eyes or staring at the TV screen in disbelief. It leads to an ending that made no sense whatsoever! Only in the 1960s could an incomprehensible mishmash like this be made AND released. So, as I said, it's terrible but VERY entertaining if you're into movies that are so bad they're good. I give it an 8.
7 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Groupie grope goes ga-ga in untouchable, unctious sixties silliness, 29 June 1999
Author: dvox from Keene, New Hampshire USA
Long ago in the swingin', free-love sixties, before the onset of interpretive sexual harassment, you could abduct your favorite pop idol, strip them nearly naked, tie them to a rotating table under a transparent dome, and force yourself upon them, and lo and behold: THEY LOVE IT!!! Rigggghhhhhhhht!
9 out of 25 people found the following review useful:
Sometimes films are best left unseen, 31 July 1999
Author: John Seal from Oakland CA
The Touchables had intrigued me for a decade or more before I had the opportunity (thanks to FXM) to actually see it. It would have been for the best if they hadn't programmed it. The ONLY reasons to watch The Touchables are if you a)have an insatiable appetite for plotless 60s fashion shows masquerading as films, or b)you want to hear the terrific theme song by the (English) Nirvana. There's also a snippet of The Pink Floyd's Interstellar Overdrive used inexplicably as background music during a boat ride, but it's precious little consolation for sitting through this piece of ripe tripe.
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|