Adventures of a Private Eye

Young and randy private eye Bob West investigates a case in which a beautiful young woman called Laura is being blackmailed over some sex photographs of her. This is the second entry in the British "Adventures of.." sex-comedy series (and I use the word "comedy" loosely). Bob is a new lead character and Christopher Neil is fine in the role but how they got the gorgeous and talented Suzy Kendall (as Laura) to appear in this crap surprises me, I will always know her for appearing in some classic Italian Giallo movies. For British viewers of a certain age there are many familiar faces among the cast - John Pertwee, Diana Dors, Harry H Corbett and Willie Rushton, etc - but the one that I liked most of all was a very young Peter Moran, who went on to play Pogo Patterson in the fantastic BBC school drama "Grange Hill". For a film that was marketed as a sex-comedy there is in fact very little sex, not enough quite frankly. Likewise, there is nudity but it is all very brief. And in terms of comedy, bar a few scenes, it fails miserably at being funny. Bob stays at the home of Laura, a Gothic looking English mansion, the residents of which include a creepy butler, an eccentric female medium and a buxom blonde housemaid. There are secret passages and one good jump scare, as a horror fan I liked this. One of the few laugh out loud moments has Bob use shoe polish to go in disguise as an Arab, snowflakes might be shocked by this blackface gag but I laughed. At 96 minutes (Blu-ray) the film felt way too long. These "Adventures" are obviously a knock-off of the better known "Confessions of.." sex-comedy series but having now watched two out of the trilogy so far I am not impressed.

This reminds me of what I think TV comedies were like in the 1970s - not the good programmes which get repeated but rather the hundreds of other ones which we've successfully purged from our collective memories. It's not the funniest comedy but it's by no means the worst. There's a fair bit of nudity but nothing you couldn't watch with your mother in the room.

The last two Carry On films from the 1970s were rightly criticised for becoming seedy, sordid and smutty - not in keeping the traditional Carry On saucy seaside postcard spirit. Their slide into the gutter was because they were competing with the so-called sex-comedies such as the 'Confessions of' and 'Adventures of' series which unapologetically set out to give the audience daft childish humour and lots of lovely, luscious topless ladies! This film actually feels more innocent, more cosy .....almost more family friendly than the last two Carry On films! Unlike the Confessions films or the dire Carry On England, this one's got a proper story, a reasonably clever script, proper stars doing proper acting playing proper characters - some quite funny and even some of the jokes are funny. Also Christopher Neil is pretty good. He's likeable which is important in a weak film like this, he keeps you watching. Unlike the stereotypical working class cheeky chappie caricature Robin Askwith played in the Confessions films, you can relate to Christopher Neil.

As a comedy, you don't need to take precautions against the possibility of your sides splitting. As a smutty movie you don't need to worry about your grandma turning up - she'd might even enjoy it more than you! It's called a 'sex-comedy' but it's very tame, the sex scenes are there for comedic purposes only and the nudity isn't much more explicit than you'd see queuing up outside your local nightclub these days. How strange that not too long ago this was what couples would go the cinema to see. Innocent naivety!

Exactly what you'd expect: a passable piece of comedic mystery whose main purpose is a wrap around for its infrequent eroticism involving women who don't skip meals. (nice).

I actually really love this fantasy of eccentric British Aristocrats it recreates.

I thought that, by working backwards through the 'Adventures of…' films, I might see a slight rise in quality with each one I watch, ending with the best, but that is most definitely not the case: in fact, Adventures of a Private Eye, the middle film in the 'trilogy', is so diabolical that it's a wonder they ever made a third film.

The action starts in expected low-rent Confessions knock-off style, with private eye assistant Bob West (Christopher Neil) unable to resist taking over the role of detective while his womanising boss (Jon Pertwee) is out of the office for a few days. Agreeing to help sexy Laura Sutton (Suzy Kendall), who is being blackmailed for £50k, he takes off for the countryside to see which of the other potential heirs to Laura's late husband's fortune could be the the extortionist. As the silly plot progresses, the film turns into a very tired murder/mystery farce, albeit one with plenty of gratuitous nudity and soft-core sex featuring some very attractive British babes.

A cavalcade of crass and not in the least bit funny japes, Private Eye is a sorry state of affairs that makes even the weakest of the Confessions movies look like pure comedic genius. But what is REALLY sad about this film is seeing such a talented cast of British comic actors going to such waste: among those given absolutely nothing to work with are Irene Handl, Diana Dors, Liz Fraser, Harry H. Corbett, Willie Rushton, and Ian Lavender.

2.5/10, generously rounded up to 3 for the nostalgia factor, the film showing me West Byfleet Railway Station in all of its 70s glory and an early appearance by Peter Moran, who would go on to play obnoxious ginger Pogo Patterson in classic kids' TV series Grange Hill.

Adventures of a Private Eye introduces us to a number of dense, almost unsolvable mysteries: has Britain ever produced a worse director than Stanley A. Long? why does Long not know, despite spending over 15 years in the film business prior to making this film, how to pace a sequence or end one on a proper punchline? why does he hire enormously talented actors like Harry H. Corbett, Irene Handl, Diana Dors, Jon Pertwee, Anna Quayle and Julien Orchard and give them absolutely nothing to do? why did 70s English audiences flock to see absolute rubbish like this in their droves? It can't be the sex, as compared to the likes of the then-contemporary Swedish and French cinema, there's hardly any flesh on display here, and none of it is even remotely erotic; nor can it be the comedy, which is a lot of things (incompetent, mean spirited, offensive, banal, ignorant, half-hearted, old hat) but not even remotely funny; it can't be the story, which makes British comedy capers of the period which were less successful at the Box Office (House in Nightmare Park for example) look like Chinatown.

To be fair, Private Dick is a smidgeon better than the first entry into the series, purely because it actually has some kind of story as opposed to being a merely string of idiot vignettes. And the film does look good, especially on the new Region 2 Dvds, where the gorgeous lighting of the interiors and night time scenes is genuinely impressive (catch the shot of photographer Scott walking towards the mansion after dark, the screen awash with breathtaking colours). And Adrienne Posta does a mean Liza Minelli impression, supported would you believe by the boy from the Tomorrow People playing a Bugsy Malone-type Italian gangster, all school play amateurism and elbows.

"Bloody amateurs" is a phrase a police inspector in the film uses about private eyes, and it's apt given the star of the movie can't act: Christopher Neil is a nullity into oblivion as the title character, taking over from Barry Evans (who instead chose to appear in the flop sex comedy Under the Doctor). Yet another document on the sexual, spiritual and social dereliction of the UK in the 1970s. It does bear the distinction of having a cameo by Shaw Taylor, tipping the wink to TV's then current Police 5, which just goes to show how narrowly culturally specific an audience of TV morons the producer was aiming at with this.