Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

stangya sorensa Gabrielle Drake! NAKED!!!!!!! What more do you want????

James Hitchcock Tigon British Film Productions were best-known as rivals of Hammer as makers of horror films, but their "Au Pair Girls" is an example of that other mainstay of the British cinema during the seventies, the softcore sex comedy. The reason why these two types of film should have been mainstays of the British cinema was that, at least during the earlier part of the decade, the British Board of Film Censors was considerably less censorious than the management of the country's television networks, so the cinema could cater for those with an interest in those subjects, primarily sex and horror, which were banned from the airwaves. (By the end of the decade the TV industry had started to catch up with the cinema in permissiveness).During this period the figure of the au pair girl was something of a recognised sex symbol; every blue comedian's joke book contained at least one crack about lecherous husbands unable to keep their hands off the au pair, so making a sex film about their misadventures must have seemed an obvious step. Four au pairs- Anita (Swedish), Randi (Danish), Christa (German) and Nan (Chinese)- arrive at Heathrow Airport in order to take up their positions. Although nearly all au pairs in Britain at this period were European, Nan seems to have been added to the mix to make the film seem more exotic. Or possibly because an Anglo-Burmese actress just happened to be available. "Randi" is not a common baptismal name in Denmark, but was presumably used here to give the scriptwriter a chance to make some obvious puns.The film then follows the "adventures" (euphemism for sexual couplings) of each of the four girls. There isn't a lot of plot beyond what is necessary to get from one sex scene to the next. Anita ends up as the lover of an Arab sheikh and eventually a member of his harem. Randi beds Stephen, the son of the family with whom she is staying, much to the disgust of his father. Christa starts off as a shy, innocent virgin, but is quickly converted to the cause of promiscuity by Carol, the daughter of her family, and both end up in bed with a hirsute rock star. The weirdest plot line is the one involving Nan. Like Randi, she seduces the son of her hosts, but whereas Stephen is a fairly normal young man, Nan's lover, Rupert, is a brilliant but immature concert pianist who behaves like a spoilt child. (Rupert's family home is Oakley Court in Berkshire, a stately home used in other films of the period such as "And Now the Screaming Starts!") Plot, however, is not what sold films like this in the seventies. What the target audience of young men wanted to see was female flesh, and plenty of it, and they would not have been disappointed. Although all the couplings involved are heterosexual- it would be a number of years before it became obligatory for soft core sex comedies to include a token lesbian scene- director Val Guest somehow manages to get away without showing much male flesh, something in which his target audience would have had little interest."Au Pair Girls", however, has very little to interest modern viewers, even those interested in erotica, as like most seventies softcore it is very tame by today's standards. Seen as comedy it is feeble in the extreme, even though it features cameo appearances by mainstream comedy actors such as John ("Dad's Army") Le Mesurier and Richard ("Man about the House") O'Sullivan. (Those puns on Randi's name are about as close as it ever gets to anything resembling a joke). Gabrielle Drake, who plays Randi, was to go on to become a respected mainstream actress herself on British television and doubtless regarded this as one of the more embarrassing entries on her CV.The film recently turned up on the specialist British film channel "Talking Pictures", but I cannot think why they showed it, except perhaps as an exercise in nostalgia for the now-ageing roués who would have flocked to it in the 1970s. 2/10

CelluloidDog Actual rating = 6.8, sad to see only a 5.1 on IMDb. No spoilers except a few quotes below which I felt compelled to add since the film is underrated and undervalued for the script/gags.A light, sexy farce. A pleasant surprise for what I thought might be a laughably bad film as I only watched this as it queued up in my Netflix list, I think because I watch a good amount of everything including foreign films. An English sexploitation (or is it really? aren't most movies in that sense exploitation either of violence, one's fears as in horror films, etc), it is surprisingly well-written and has a terrific sense of humor. I wouldn't call it a sexploitation film, but it almost seems mainstream in a genuinely better written and acted film. Many English comedies can run a bit local, but this one has a more universal humor with plenty of double entendre, gags, etc. Very cleverly done script. The first few minutes open fairly poorly, boring and one wonders if this will be a $50,000 film. But it actually gets better and has a light, witted humor about. There is plenty of gratuitous frontal nudity but it's barely erotic but done in humor. As one commentator mentioned, not unlike watching Benny Hill. Some people say the stereotypes of the girls and the silliness of Astrid Frank who constantly asks for color TV runs dry, but keep in mind, it's a light comedy, very much in the late 60s, early 70s style. I actually thought Anita Sector (played by Astrid Frank), B.W. Wainwright, the farm and mechanic hands Fred ("can't do nothing") and Burt, and Lord Tryke ("Port") more for some of humorous characters. Even the sheik with "ordained' lines. The jokes "My friends, they call me Randi"…"…so do mine" run on the light, witty side. Gabrielle Drake and Nancie Wait are beautiful to watch. The worst and least interesting character was the conceited Ricky Strange, a terrible voice for a "singer" and a boring character, more hippy and trash than the others. Even Buster was more interesting. Goofy and bizarre was the relationship between Nan Lee and the sheltered, strange Rupert ("what do you think of your new playmate?" "I like it"). The photographer scene was hilarious, "what is this?" "Boobless bath oil". Although comedic, it leaves a distaste in most of the girls mouths as in one night, none succeed at their jobs except Anita comes to the rescue of the others.Acting is very good except for the girls (except Nancie Wait did a good job as the virgin), probably because they were asked to act silly. Today we watch plenty of violent films. One wonders if this genre is a bit healthier but again, in almost any film, nothing is real. As imaginary as the character Stephen Wainwright's fantasies. It almost seems to have influenced a series like Austin Powers and is actually better written although production is lesser. But a well-written although silly comedy.

Gatorman9 I decided to check this movie out on Netflix in spite of the uninspiring description given for it, which made it sound like a typical grade B- exploitation flick, just because I wanted to see Gabrielle Drake in something other than reruns of the 1960's TV series *UFO*. But granting that I'm an American too young to have seen much of this genre of films from this era, I found this movie much more enjoyable than I expected. It was thoroughly professionally produced, with consistent and thoroughly professional acting, editing, photography and comedic effects and timing from one end to the other. The plot -- actually, plots (here there are four of them) work perfectly well for what they are, are not especially predictable, and are light on the clichés, and there is some pretty witty dialog, too. Several times I caught myself laughing out loud. Moreover, the, er, mature parts actually fit the true definition of that word for a change, as it seemed to me that the filmmakers were not the least bit shy about how they handled them, being quite unembarrassedly frank to the point of in-your-face (not to mention actually more believable in certain small details than typical American-made Cinemax 2:00 AM fare) in the way they were handled. It may not be high art, but like, say, *Gilligan's Island*, I thought it was quite good for what it was. I'm not surprised to learn that the director actually seems to have a reputation for doing good stuff in other genres.