User reviews

This is probably the most expurgated version of Fanny Hill you'll ever see. The only way to get an R rating in 1964 for a movie with a sexual subject seems to be to turn it into a leering, puerile comedy. The problem is that it doesn't work as a comedy, or as erotica, or even as historic fiction.

The plot revolves around Fanny's belief that she has been taken in by a kind lady to work in a hat shop, instead of in an expensive brothel. Fanny manages to avoid the clients she's been set up with for the entire movie without ever finding out the truth. The plot never evolves beyond this obvious story. There's also no attention paid to accuracy: the setting for the movie lurches around between 1750 and 1890, and the dialogue ranges even further.

Of all the actors in the movie, only Leticia Roman and Miriam Hopkins show any life. The others are stick figures, feigning animation with affected voices and arched eyebrows. Not that Roman and Hopkins aren't guilty of overacting: they just occasionally show there might be more there.

This movie may be worth preserving along with "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice" for anthropological studies on 1960's Hollywood attitudes towards sex, but it's not worth watching for entertainment. Read the book.

Fanny Hill proved to be something of a one-off for famed sexploitation director Russ Meyer. For one thing, it was a film he made in West Germany and it was also a period film based on a literary source. It was hardly, therefore, the kind of material that Meyer was used to tackling. As such, it is definitely one of the less personal films he ever made, where he truly seemed like no more than a director-for-hire. The story follows a young woman who falls on hard times but is welcomed in a house populated by women; which the wide eyed innocent doesn't recognise as a brothel.

Whenever Meyer veers too far out of his comfort zone it often ends in trouble and Fanny Hill is unfortunately no exception. It is a film which will be unlikely to satisfy many Meyer fans nor those who liked the novel I should imagine. It's neither erotic nor funny and also commits one of the worse cinematic sins in being over-long too. Definitely a film which Meyer completists should at least see but it is something of a slog to get through though, so be warned. The most interesting aspect of it for me was the appearance of Laetitia Roman in the lead role. I had hitherto only known her from her starring performance in Mario Bava's highly influential year-zero giallo The Girl Who Knew Too Much (1963), which needless to say was a considerably better film than this one. But it was nice to see her in something else at the very least.

Inane dialogue in this Russ Meyer burlesque farce/love story....but the naughty subject matter and low cut dresses were probably enough to keep the viewing public interested. Our innocent little Italian-born star, Leticia Roman plays Fanny Hill, who is looking for work, and ends up boarding in a house full of "female cousins". Roman had made GI Blues, along with 8 other films prior to this one. The fast carnival-type music, the hair-dos, and the costumes tip us off that this will be an odd period piece. Mrs. Brown (Miriam Hopkins) takes Fanny in, and claims that the residents and the visitors are all related, which adds another weird dimension to the plot. Try to catch the new lyrics to "London Bridge is Falling Down" as they frolic at the king's palace....Later, Fanny meets the dashing sailor "Charles", and when separated, Fanny is devastated. This 1964 version is one hour 45 minutes, and goes on way too long. The 1968 subtitled Swedish version remake is actually easier to watch, since it's in color, only 91 minutes, and has a more cohesive script.