"Ginger' (Cheri Caffaro) is a young woman from New York who has been recruited by a private investigative company to gather intelligence on a criminal named "Rex Halsey" (Duane Tucker) who has a small operation in New Jersey which capitalizes on drugs, prostitution and blackmail. To get the evidence required for a conviction she has to infiltrate his small circle of accomplices and the last two who tried have ended up dead. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that I found this to be a sleazy but somewhat entertaining film all the same. Having said that I should probably add that this movie is not for those who are easily offended as it contains scenes with full frontal nudity, bondage, rape and racial slurs. Along with that it was a low-budget film which includes some weak fighting scenes, a poor script and some very basic acting. But Cheri Caffaro does a decent enough job in spite of it all and manages to keep the film moving along all the same. Likewise, having attractive young ladies like Michele Norris (as "Vicki Jennings"), Cindy Barnett ("Jean Oliver") and the aforementioned Cheri Caffaro certainly didn't hurt. Accordingly, I rate this movie as about average.
14 Reviews
Make no mistake - this IS a bad movie ... but !
IndustriousAngel15 February 2016
There's something special about the three "Ginger" movies, something I'd very much like to see re-made or re-tried with today's sensibilities and a bigger budget. While "Ginger" is, by far, the worst of the three ("The Abductors" and "Girls are made for Loving" are actually completely watchable B-movie fare albeit with a strong sexual / sadomasochistic touch), the idiosyncrasies which made this series stand out among other, more forgettable drive-in fare, are already there in part 1. The premise of a female hero not only surviving in an otherwise men's world (and genre) but positively calling the shots is extremely rare even today. In "Haywire", Gina Carrano is bashing male stars left and right, but she is far from "calling the shots" - neither does she sexually predate like Ginger does. The same goes for Angelina Jolie's "Salt". In fact, Ginger is maybe the nearest we get in movie history to what was otherwise a very male role-model. (This is probably why she was called "the female James Bond" although she's not a secret agent at all). And while today's killing ladies are as a rule ridiculous (even Carrano - trained in martial arts - looked silly beating up guys double her weigth), Ginger very rarely relies on beating someone up - she works the weapons of a woman as well as guns, poison, traps or whatever it takes to take her opponents out. Disturbing but, in a refreshing way, at least halfway realistic!
A word on acting: As mentioned, the two follow-up movies are much better, "Ginger" otoh sports acting that can only be described as a-tro-cious. Except for Cheri Caffaro herself, she's neither a top-model nor a great actress but she has screen presence in spades (a bit like Schwarzenegger) and there are a few scenes in here (the killings of Rodney and Jimmy for instance) where she comes over truly menacing and mesmerizing. Part of her screen presence may be thanks to her tall body - maybe the other actors were cast so they were a bit smaller but she does own every scene she's in.
So, while I can't really recommend this slow-paced and cheaply-made stinker to anyone on its own merits, there are certain qualities in there which are really interesting and some themes which I would liked explored in future productions.
A word on acting: As mentioned, the two follow-up movies are much better, "Ginger" otoh sports acting that can only be described as a-tro-cious. Except for Cheri Caffaro herself, she's neither a top-model nor a great actress but she has screen presence in spades (a bit like Schwarzenegger) and there are a few scenes in here (the killings of Rodney and Jimmy for instance) where she comes over truly menacing and mesmerizing. Part of her screen presence may be thanks to her tall body - maybe the other actors were cast so they were a bit smaller but she does own every scene she's in.
So, while I can't really recommend this slow-paced and cheaply-made stinker to anyone on its own merits, there are certain qualities in there which are really interesting and some themes which I would liked explored in future productions.
Sexy Cheri Caffaro is about all "Ginger" has going for it
gridoon202421 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A good setup and a sexy-as-hell (if obviously inexperienced; this was her film debut, after all) leading lady get bogged down by static pacing, poorly lit night scenes, very little and very mediocre action, distasteful (as opposed to tasteful) (s)exploitation, and contradictory genre politics: the filmmakers make Ginger a dominant character most of the way, only to subvert all that in the last 10 minutes. Clearly a B-grade production, "Ginger" somehow remains watchable in spite of its flaws - and as much as I try, I can't think of any reason other than the fact that Cheri Caffaro is so uninhibitedly sexy. Best line (while she's simultaneously kissing and interrogating another woman): "You go on and I'll go on". ** out of 4.
Sexploitation at its best
John_Mclaren3 April 2004
Oh, I know the acting is wobbly, the plot clanks like a medieval dungeon, and the cinematography is dodgy. But this is pure '70s sexploitation.
I loved it.
Yes it is sexist, unpc and everything modern Hollywood tries not to be. But that is its charm. It is about cute women toting unfeasable weapons and getting naked in an unbelievable B-movie plot. So what? That's what we want with this stuff.
If you want boring and complacent cinema, go watch a movie with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.....
I loved it.
Yes it is sexist, unpc and everything modern Hollywood tries not to be. But that is its charm. It is about cute women toting unfeasable weapons and getting naked in an unbelievable B-movie plot. So what? That's what we want with this stuff.
If you want boring and complacent cinema, go watch a movie with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.....
An exploitation movie with sex, violence and racism
bergma15@msu.edu26 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is the first installment in the Ginger series. It was obviously shot on a budget, so they needed all of the sex and violence that they could throw in. The characters are pretty dull, as is the plot, but it seems like they tried to make up for it through using gratuitous sex scenes.
The plot is extremely simple. Ginger is an attractive blonde co-ed who is hired by a spy organization to break a corruption ring in Jersey. The group deals in prostitution and drugs. Throughout the movie, we learn more about Ginger's past and why she's doing this. The biggest problem I have with the film, forgiving the lack of originality, is how blatantly racist the lead character is. We learn why she is this way, but still, they really could have done it another way without going down that road. There was quite a bit I could forgive (I know what to expect from a low budget film), but this combined with the lack luster plot and dirt poor acting really made me hate this film. The only reason I gave it a 2 is that it tried to be an exploitation film.
Oh, and yes there is full frontal nudity in it, but it's of both genders (I guess they wanted to throw something in for the ladies).
The plot is extremely simple. Ginger is an attractive blonde co-ed who is hired by a spy organization to break a corruption ring in Jersey. The group deals in prostitution and drugs. Throughout the movie, we learn more about Ginger's past and why she's doing this. The biggest problem I have with the film, forgiving the lack of originality, is how blatantly racist the lead character is. We learn why she is this way, but still, they really could have done it another way without going down that road. There was quite a bit I could forgive (I know what to expect from a low budget film), but this combined with the lack luster plot and dirt poor acting really made me hate this film. The only reason I gave it a 2 is that it tried to be an exploitation film.
Oh, and yes there is full frontal nudity in it, but it's of both genders (I guess they wanted to throw something in for the ladies).
BAD MOVIE, NOW OUT AS A BOX SET.
larryanderson18 May 2020
Excellent fem fighting action!
VintageAmazons9 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
How come in the 1970s movies they did the best and most erotic femfight scenes? Just think about "The Amazons" (1973) In the beginning of this movie Ginger is challenged on the beach by a group of bad girls. She ends up fighting the girls ringleader in a a short violent tussle in the sand. Tough blonde Ginger defeats her brunette adversary and strips her of her bikini, while continueing to beat her. Ginger uses the bikini of the losing girl to tie up her arms and legs. As the girls tries to get up Ginger sends her crashing back into the sand and into humiliating defeat by a swift kick of her sexy foot into her oppnents belly.
"I Want to Laugh and Swing while Im Still Young.. You Don't Do that in Jail Rex!"
BaronBl00d5 July 2008
Delightfully awful "Thriller" about a leggy blonde going undercover to catch a gang of bad guys and gals that are fleecing rich people somewhere in New Jersey and getting them hooked on drugs as well. Yes, the acting is really as bad as you may have heard. Cheri Caffaro says her lines with little conviction, yet she is one of the better thespians involved. I just loved the flashback scenes she goes through that are suppose to be so poignant but turn into being pure dreck - and a real hoot. Caffaro knows something about hoot, well, hooters that is. And so does the rest of the female cast. The detective helping Caffaro, William Grannel, has little acting talent either, but the worst performance which is so bad it becomes camp is by Duane Tucker as Rex Halsey, the guy that is the mastermind behind all the bad doings wearing a neck scarf throughout and has at least four buttons undone on his shirt. Everything he says he seems to be saying with such conviction to the audience as he madly overacts - rolling his eyes and saying pronouncements with facial gestures in the foreground of some of the cheapest sets I have seen in a film in some time. We do get many, many girls in various stages of undress though. The script is implausible. The budget super-cheap. With all its defects - and they are legion - I too enjoyed Ginger and look forward to seeing the two sequels. This movie is definitely a product of the 70s, a time when filmmakers could virtually and would do virtually anything they thought would be provocative. No PC here - and I find it refreshing. Movies today are so scared to walk the fine line that they have become flat in many ways. Ginger isn't flat(you gotta see it to believe it) at all. It is a guilty pleasure to be sure but one that I found very entertaining and was laughing with and about it from start to finish.
Cheap, Sleazy, with No Redeeming Value--I Loved It!
ascheland7 August 2004
"Ginger"'s plot is flimsy, the dialog is wretched, its sentiment very un-PC (and just a tad bit racist), its look cheap, and the acting... um, well, I'll be kind and say a few people at least try to say their lines with feeling. Yet despite all these things going against it, I was thoroughly entertained.
Cheri Caffaro, the star of this made-in-New Jersey sexploitation "thriller," is largely what held my attention. Nearly a foot taller than any of her co-stars, with a slim figure, long-bleached blond hair and nearly non-existent eyebrows, Caffaro is more handsome than pretty or sexy. She could easily be mistaken for a transsexual ("Ginger: The Gender Avenger"--now THAT would've really been interesting). As an actress she's... better than some of the other non-actors in this movie, but she's got presence. Her "seductive" dance in a nightclub is a camp classic--made more so by her visually offensive pink outfit. There's a lot of sex and nudity, and more than a passing nod to bondage enthusiasts, with three scenes that have characters handcuffed or tied to beds, including the late Calvin Culver, better known as gay porn star Casey Donovan. Perhaps Culver/Donovan's work in hardcore movies is why he didn't balk at being shown Full Monty. Viewers also get treated to an anemic cat fight on the beach and some tepid lesbian bonding. Though all the sex is decidedly un-erotic, these scenes certainly work better than "Ginger"'s clumsy action sequences.
"Ginger" kind of plays like a relic from the porno chic era, only minus any hardcore content. Even the opening credits, with our heroine cruising the Jersey Turnpike in her gold Corvette, had me thinking of the title sequence of "Deep Throat" (yes, I know "Deep Throat" was released a year later, but I saw it before "Ginger"). And like a pornographic film, "Ginger" has absolutely no redeeming social value. And I enjoyed every minute of it!
Cheri Caffaro, the star of this made-in-New Jersey sexploitation "thriller," is largely what held my attention. Nearly a foot taller than any of her co-stars, with a slim figure, long-bleached blond hair and nearly non-existent eyebrows, Caffaro is more handsome than pretty or sexy. She could easily be mistaken for a transsexual ("Ginger: The Gender Avenger"--now THAT would've really been interesting). As an actress she's... better than some of the other non-actors in this movie, but she's got presence. Her "seductive" dance in a nightclub is a camp classic--made more so by her visually offensive pink outfit. There's a lot of sex and nudity, and more than a passing nod to bondage enthusiasts, with three scenes that have characters handcuffed or tied to beds, including the late Calvin Culver, better known as gay porn star Casey Donovan. Perhaps Culver/Donovan's work in hardcore movies is why he didn't balk at being shown Full Monty. Viewers also get treated to an anemic cat fight on the beach and some tepid lesbian bonding. Though all the sex is decidedly un-erotic, these scenes certainly work better than "Ginger"'s clumsy action sequences.
"Ginger" kind of plays like a relic from the porno chic era, only minus any hardcore content. Even the opening credits, with our heroine cruising the Jersey Turnpike in her gold Corvette, had me thinking of the title sequence of "Deep Throat" (yes, I know "Deep Throat" was released a year later, but I saw it before "Ginger"). And like a pornographic film, "Ginger" has absolutely no redeeming social value. And I enjoyed every minute of it!
The first of a three-movie series
TroyAir25 May 1999
This film is the first of a 3-film series, and is the worst of the 3, mainly because the other two films have the benefit of a higher budget due to profits from the first film.
In this series-opener, our hero Ginger, played by Cheri Caffaro (who won a Bridgett Bardot look-alike contest as a teenager) plays a private investigator who infiltrates a gang of women. As part of her initiation she fights the leader, with the loser being stripped naked and tied up on the beach. The rest of the movie follows pretty much the same theme: women finding one reason or another to get tied up nude and sometimes having sex.
One redeeming quality about this film is that its one of the few films to openly use bondage as a recurring event and still come away with a mainstream "R" rating in the US. This is because the film (and the series as a whole) has the benefit of being made in that window of time called the Sexual Liberation and before the feminists and Politically Correct enthusiasts got ahold of the movie industry and theatres. In fact, the "Ginger" series might have disappeared all together had it not been for three simple technological inventions: the VCR, the home computer, and the Internet. Now, like-minded individuals can get together and express their common interests, including mainstream "B" movie bondage/adventure films.
Collectors will want to get all three films, but those on a budget will probably just want the second film ("The Abductors") and the third film ("Girls Are For Loving").
In this series-opener, our hero Ginger, played by Cheri Caffaro (who won a Bridgett Bardot look-alike contest as a teenager) plays a private investigator who infiltrates a gang of women. As part of her initiation she fights the leader, with the loser being stripped naked and tied up on the beach. The rest of the movie follows pretty much the same theme: women finding one reason or another to get tied up nude and sometimes having sex.
One redeeming quality about this film is that its one of the few films to openly use bondage as a recurring event and still come away with a mainstream "R" rating in the US. This is because the film (and the series as a whole) has the benefit of being made in that window of time called the Sexual Liberation and before the feminists and Politically Correct enthusiasts got ahold of the movie industry and theatres. In fact, the "Ginger" series might have disappeared all together had it not been for three simple technological inventions: the VCR, the home computer, and the Internet. Now, like-minded individuals can get together and express their common interests, including mainstream "B" movie bondage/adventure films.
Collectors will want to get all three films, but those on a budget will probably just want the second film ("The Abductors") and the third film ("Girls Are For Loving").
A guilty pleasure - like the occasional splurge when dieting
bbhlthph21 November 2004
When I reviewed the film 'Christina' for IMDb, I commented that it was very poorly made in comparison with many of the earlier films of the same genre, such as the early 1970's series featuring the female private investigator Ginger. Later thinking back about this spontaneous comment I found it hard to rationalise why I had hated watching Christina, but had enjoyed the Ginger series; and I began to wonder whether this was solely because I was looking back at the latter series, which I have not viewed during the quarter century since they were first released, through the rose coloured spectacles of relative youth. Many of the criticisms I had made about Christina seemed on reflection to have been equally applicable to the Ginger films. These and other films of the same genre were made on a relatively low budget for the sole purpose of bringing in good returns to their promoters; or (if we are more charitable) building up the funds required for the production of a planned future epic or Oscar winner. They are basically simple exploitation movies with an appeal based on sex and violence and with no pretensions to cinematographic significance. The promoters know that the largest cinema audiences consist of young people who typically attend in groups or pairs and who expect an interesting but not memorable screening they can enjoy together. Films such as "Ginger" or "Pepper" appeal to girls and women because they feature an unusually capable female investigator who can always deal with male colleagues or opponents on a more than equal basis. Their recipe includes enough violence and female nudity to ensure that they have an equal appeal for youths and young men; and they always show respect for the traditional values of Society - the good guys always win out in the end and there is no tolerance of either criminals or revolutionaries. Why then should I remember the Ginger films quarter of a century later, whilst most of the other films of the same genre which I have seen since have now been totally forgotten?
To answer this question I obtained copies of the first and third of the Ginger films ("Ginger" and "Girls are for Loving") to watch again, and am now submitting my comments on both to IMDb. These two sets of comments should be regarded as complimentary - probably the main difference between these films is that the first is a typical very low budget production designed to test the market, whilst the third has clearly benefited from rather less financial constraints. In these comments I am limiting myself to generalities when considering 'Ginger', but examining more specific considerations in the case of 'Girls are for Loving'.
Viewing these two films for a second time I found it very hard to identify any areas where they are significantly better in quality than 'Christina'. All these films feature violence, nudity and sexually suggestive situations, with no redeeming social message, often to the point where they would be regarded by most viewers as no more than soft porn. They are intended to provide easy viewing but not memorable fare. The Martin and Porter Guide to Home Videos makes the telling comment that it will not describe "Ginger" as the best of these three films, but rather as the least repulsive. However the Ginger films are still available as DVD's, and are presumably still selling, over 30 years after they were first released, so I am not alone in remembering them when so many of their later imitators have been totally forgotten. After watching them again I feel certain that this difference is primarily attributable to a much greater tautness in the script. Watching many other similar films, viewers encounter numerous rather boring sequences where they wonder why they are wasting their time watching such trash. Ultimately this leads to a low rating for the film in question. The problem here lies in the direction. Whilst they were no better made or acted, the direction of the Ginger films is such that the story carries the viewer forward from moment to moment in a way which leaves little time for introspection or boredom to develop. In my view this is the reason they have survived whilst so many later films have fallen by the wayside. But their appeal is purely that of a guilty pleasure, re-watching them reminded me of the appeal of splurging on a massive and rich ice cream concoction after a long period of dieting. The only reason why this may be said to be a good thing to do is that, certainly for some people, an occasional indulgence of this kind can be of enormous value in helping them to maintain the ongoing discipline of dieting over an extended period of time.
If you know that you enjoy this type of occasional indulgence, watch one or more of the Ginger films. You will probably not be disappointed.
To answer this question I obtained copies of the first and third of the Ginger films ("Ginger" and "Girls are for Loving") to watch again, and am now submitting my comments on both to IMDb. These two sets of comments should be regarded as complimentary - probably the main difference between these films is that the first is a typical very low budget production designed to test the market, whilst the third has clearly benefited from rather less financial constraints. In these comments I am limiting myself to generalities when considering 'Ginger', but examining more specific considerations in the case of 'Girls are for Loving'.
Viewing these two films for a second time I found it very hard to identify any areas where they are significantly better in quality than 'Christina'. All these films feature violence, nudity and sexually suggestive situations, with no redeeming social message, often to the point where they would be regarded by most viewers as no more than soft porn. They are intended to provide easy viewing but not memorable fare. The Martin and Porter Guide to Home Videos makes the telling comment that it will not describe "Ginger" as the best of these three films, but rather as the least repulsive. However the Ginger films are still available as DVD's, and are presumably still selling, over 30 years after they were first released, so I am not alone in remembering them when so many of their later imitators have been totally forgotten. After watching them again I feel certain that this difference is primarily attributable to a much greater tautness in the script. Watching many other similar films, viewers encounter numerous rather boring sequences where they wonder why they are wasting their time watching such trash. Ultimately this leads to a low rating for the film in question. The problem here lies in the direction. Whilst they were no better made or acted, the direction of the Ginger films is such that the story carries the viewer forward from moment to moment in a way which leaves little time for introspection or boredom to develop. In my view this is the reason they have survived whilst so many later films have fallen by the wayside. But their appeal is purely that of a guilty pleasure, re-watching them reminded me of the appeal of splurging on a massive and rich ice cream concoction after a long period of dieting. The only reason why this may be said to be a good thing to do is that, certainly for some people, an occasional indulgence of this kind can be of enormous value in helping them to maintain the ongoing discipline of dieting over an extended period of time.
If you know that you enjoy this type of occasional indulgence, watch one or more of the Ginger films. You will probably not be disappointed.
This "Ginger" lacks spice
Wizard-82 August 2003
I don't have too much else to post here that the previous commenters haven't mentioned. Extremely cheap (a lot of it obviously filmed in motel rooms), surprisingly unerotic despite the ample nudity and sex, and sorely lacking in action and excitement. And with a lead character running around all of this who never comes across as cunning, intelligent, or even sexy. The movie is also sorely lacking linking footage, with people all of a sudden in situations that come out nowhere, or their fates left up to question. Apparently, the filmmakers didn't care enough to show us this, so why should we at all for the entire movie?
Ginger is for loving, beating, handcuffing...
Dr. Gore13 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*
I bought this one from Blockbuster for five bucks. I've stared at the video box for "Ginger" for the better part of my movie watching life, wondering when I was going to get around to watching it. There is a blonde on the front cover with ammunition belts covering both of her breasts. How could I resist? Sadly, that scene was not in this movie.
Ginger is some sort of secret agent/private detective. Her boss sends her out to the Jersey Shore to check out some guys running drugs and prostitutes. They have a little blackmail scheme going on as well. Ginger uses her assets to seduce the bad guys and to find out what she can.
First, the bad news. This movie stinks. The acting is terrible. AWFUL. Ginger was a leggy blonde with a harsh tan line and NO acting ability. There are plenty of sex scenes but they're filmed in a way that makes watching the sexual act a really depressing experience. Basically a naked girl will lie on top of a naked man. No movements. No attempt to even be a remote facsimile of sexual intercourse. It was bad.
The good news is that there are plenty of naked breasts in the flick. Ginger gets naked a lot near the end of the movie. There is one scene which saves "Ginger" from the garbage can. It involves a naked Ginger in handcuffs on the bed. That was just sleazy enough to make me hold on to this tape.
There's no need to watch this movie. If you feel you must, use the fast forward button. When you see a naked woman, stop.
I bought this one from Blockbuster for five bucks. I've stared at the video box for "Ginger" for the better part of my movie watching life, wondering when I was going to get around to watching it. There is a blonde on the front cover with ammunition belts covering both of her breasts. How could I resist? Sadly, that scene was not in this movie.
Ginger is some sort of secret agent/private detective. Her boss sends her out to the Jersey Shore to check out some guys running drugs and prostitutes. They have a little blackmail scheme going on as well. Ginger uses her assets to seduce the bad guys and to find out what she can.
First, the bad news. This movie stinks. The acting is terrible. AWFUL. Ginger was a leggy blonde with a harsh tan line and NO acting ability. There are plenty of sex scenes but they're filmed in a way that makes watching the sexual act a really depressing experience. Basically a naked girl will lie on top of a naked man. No movements. No attempt to even be a remote facsimile of sexual intercourse. It was bad.
The good news is that there are plenty of naked breasts in the flick. Ginger gets naked a lot near the end of the movie. There is one scene which saves "Ginger" from the garbage can. It involves a naked Ginger in handcuffs on the bed. That was just sleazy enough to make me hold on to this tape.
There's no need to watch this movie. If you feel you must, use the fast forward button. When you see a naked woman, stop.
Utterly worthless? You be the judge.
Paladin-1622 March 1999
In my honest opinion, watching this movie qualifies as an utter waste of life. I can't think of any other movie (I hesitate to call this a "film") that displays less intrinsic value to the viewer. As a matter of fact, I feel dumber for having seen it. Beware the "chicks and bullets" cover, it's utterly misleading, and there is nothing remotely erotic in there. If you're in the mood to be utterly disgusted, by all means watch it. As a matter of fact, this movie engenders a certain dissapointment in the human race in general for having produced it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
