School for Sex

1st watched 10/21/2022 - (Dir-Pete Walker): *not original Mono* Early British sex-ploitation is barely watcheable for the full 80 minutes not because it isn't titillating - but because it gets boring. It's the story of a well-to-do man who keeps skirting the law despite his guilt as he only gets a suspension for money laundering. He than decides to start a supposed sex-ed school disguised as a finishing school for girls to get money back from wrongs against him by his many wives. It's portrayed as more of a way to tease older rich men with some physical therapy done in underwear, primarily for the audience. The first group bring great results somehow, but it finally catches up to them as the police are keeping their eye on things. It's amazing how this movie got an "X" rating from the British censors when it was released, but would definetly only get an "R" rating, at least in America today. The writer/director & producer was supposedly trying to make money off the lightening of restrictions in British cinema, but it definetly doesn't stand up in today's world. A very silly premise with a lot of teasing, but not enough to keep our modern folks interested, and the bottom-line it's also very poor filmmaking with some scenes that don't even make any sense. This is kind of like a slightly more raunchy extended Benny Hill episode, but not as funny.

Saw this on an obscure British TV channel, that shows some old TV, and a few films of this type, a genre sometimes called 'sexploitation', from the 60s or 70s, designed to capture lads at the end of a Friday or Sat night out, pub, perhaps a curry, and a raunchy film -- maybe the film then a curry?

And this is really the MOST AWFUL tosh! A few such films had a bit of merit, told tongue in cheek, the 'Confessions of' series perhaps, but this has nothing of note, except perhaps the 2nd recorded appearance of Francoise Pascal?

I had to give it one (of 10) as IMDB doesn't permit anything lower, I'd have rated it approx -37 for a more accurate assessment?! A couple of reviews give it EIGHT out of ten, several scored it as a 'six'. WHAT??? How on earth then do they assess actual films that deserve proper scoring, say, Casablanca, 12 Angry Men, Roman Holiday, El Cid, The Odd Couple, Thelma & Louise, Chinatown, etc etc??

The 'story' has been described in a few reviews, the acting is dire throughout, though Derek Aylward does appear a suitably smooth bounder in the lead.

The rest have to do their best not to bump into the furniture, or each other, a village bobby might have failed an audition to be in Benny Hill, perhaps? Even the girls - the whole point of the film -- are a pretty ordinary bunch, not even much in the way of a big chest, though we have to credit Francoise Pascal, just her second film, and even in this dross managed to get noticed for a career in films and TV -- though her partner being a film star may have helped?!

I think there was some 'full frontal nudity' near the start, but I did nod off at times. The films at that time - of this type - used to love a bit of pubic hair, to keep the drunks slightly amused, and give the dirty mac brigade something to hope for later on? But there were no jokes, no great erotic appeal, nothing of note.

I suppose I could justify my 'one' rating, a mark for me, as I judged that the outdoor scenes looked like they'd been shot in one of the pretty villages in E Sussex or W Kent, and so it transpired, apparently Robertsbridge had been used to give the locals a little to chat about in shops and the pub. Hopefully any that saw the movie weren't too disappointed?!

I had decided to watch this on the basis that Nosher Powell was in this, the only other movie I have seen with him was Eat The Rich. He seemed to be mainly cast as a background heavy in things like The Sweeney, but as his name was prominent on the title it was obvious he had a larger part to play.

I am also interested in older UK movies, these sex based comedies seemed to be a big thing in the 70s and watching this it was hard to tell if it was 60s or 70s, however it was made in 69. No pun intended.

For me there wasnt a single person in this movie I recognised which suggested a low budget.

The story is about some rich gentry who is in court for running a brothel after being fleeced by a line of women leaving him broke, so he turns to immoral earnings. The bulk of the story being a flashback. Very little happens however. Its basically a set of scenes were women find a reason to strip under the guise of them being trained to seduce rich men.

What is striking is how the bodies of women have changed since the 60s. The women here have never set foot in a multi gym so their bodies are much more natural looking.

Overall the tone of this is a bit Benny Hill but without the silent treatment or the obvious humour. There is no sex on show however there is full on nudity in some scenes, that will be why its a X rating then.

Like most exploitation movies the poster promises more than it delivers, its just not engaging or entertaining.

As for Nosher, yes he has a prominent speaking role and looks very young in this. Despite being a bit part actor in the main he is probably the biggest name in this.

Hard to recommend expect for the curious....

A huge financial success in 1969. Like most postwar British films of the forties & fifties the action of this film takes place in a big country house; but despite the title the budget for 'School for School' didn't stretch to similarly spacious interiors, so the lessons indoors are decidedly confined. (Writer-director Peter Walker makes matters even worse by seeming to have learned how to stage his actors by exclusively studying films made prior to 1914; even down to the comic bobby prowling about the undergrowth.)

The patrician hero, Derek Aylward, is required by the script to occasionally lapse into using uncouth expressions like "birds", "crumpet" and "lovely lolly"; while the one authentically foxy female in it is 'Deputy Headmistress' 50 year-old Rose Alba as drunken procuress The Duchess of Burwash, never seen without a double brandy in her hand.

Like most of Walker's films it's very cynical about what makes people tick; the men being generally gormless & easily manipulated and the women mercenary.

Dastardly Giles Wingate (Derek Aylward) sets up a finishing school for girls at his large English country manor, teaching delinquent sexy young girls how to financially extort rich men. I am a fan of the horror movies of British cult director Pete Walker so when 88 Films released a box set of his sex movies on a whim I bought a copy. I decided to start with School For Sex, oh dear, I was not impressed. This movie now looks and sounds very dated with words such as "bird", "wench" and "crumpet" used to describe women, and there is no sexual equality here - women are seen stark naked but the men are always at least partially clothed. Early on there is a flashback scene to when Giles was 21 but Aylwood would have been 46 at the time! This is meant to be a comedy but I didn't find it very funny. Don't bother watching the prudish British release, instead go for the Continental version which has far more nudity. Apart from seeing a few nice "birds" I did enjoy looking at the old motor vehicles, most of which would have been built in Britain before the death of the UK motor industry.