Girls Are for Loving

This film is a continuation of the Ginger series, with Cheri Caffaro once again playing the gorgeous, very-hot-for-sex female spy. Lots of action, in exotic, outdoor settings, on the water, at nightclubs, and parties. As is Cheri's trademark, there is no shortage at all of sex, including kidnapped and tied-up innocent women, male masochism, and lots of full nudity, but this time we get an expansion of the bondage theme, as Ginger's antagonist is another beautiful lady, Ronnie St. Claire (Jocelyne Peters), ensuring female dominance of the film--the two women, with their entourage of men, vs. each other. Ronnie enjoys sex too, and like Ginger, with the enemy as well, but paradoxically (and definitely unlike Ginger) resists pleasure and being conquered, wanting control instead. This theme is played out until the climax, by which time we have seen each lead bombshell woman bond the other, fully naked and spread eagled, for the pleasure of the men, yes, but most of all to test the other on resistance to genuine sexual fulfillment. Guys, don't miss this one.

Third and last in the Ginger trilogy. I watched the first two, so I have to finish the trilogy, that's the way I am for better or worse, in this case the latter. In this one Ginger is cold in to put a stop to ... insider trading?? Yup more or less that's what it is. She also acts WAY out of character by falling in love with a black man. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but when you set her up as absolutely hating blacks in the first one, you stick to the character no matter how despicable. Despite that this has all the ingredients of a Ginger film. S&M, stupid dialog, silly 'action'. It's as bad as the other two.

Eye Candy: Cherri Caffaro, Jocelyne Peters and an unknown girl all get fully nude

My Grade: D

Girls are for Loving: 4/10: The Ginger films have always been well…different. An acquired taste if you will. An acquired bad taste in particular. The rap against the first two Ginger films (besides the obvious fact that they are misogynistic in the extreme) is that if you took away the sadism, bondage, rape and acres of young nubile flesh on display you would have a pretty bad movie.

This is completely true and as if to prove this fact Girls are for Loving removes the sadism, rape and nubile young flesh completely and is half hearted at best about bondage. So what we have left is one of the most confusing an inept action films I have ever seen.

Sure there is nudity from the two stars (Cherri Caffaro and Jocelyne Peters) and while the ladies aren't quite ready to make up half the Golden Girls sitcom even Mr. Magoo wouldn't mistake them for nubile. (One suspects Caffaro demanded that the producers not allow any naked women less attractive than her after being horrible upstaged by the delicious Jennifer Brooks in her last outing The Abductors. This might also explain why the audience is also forced to sit through not one two entire songs sung by Caffaro in a Las Vegas style review.)

The plot is about as silly as you can get. The bad guys fight like a combination of the Special Olympics and a zombie movie running at half speed. The explosions are half hearted .The sex scenes are... hold on what's the opposite of erotic. The film is shot in that Hart to Hart style of bad seventies television drama.

On the plus side Timothy Brown isn't a bad male lead/action hero and there is a Kelsey Grammar look-alike that brought me much mirth. But this simply doesn't feel like a real Ginger movie. Towards the end of the film the villain captures the ambassador's nubile daughter so the government will give her stock tips (I told you the plot is silly) anyhow in the last two Ginger movies this nineteen-year old beauty would be stripped, whipped and god knows what else.

Instead she is released unmolested and fully clothed. Caffaro, for the umpteenth time, however is tied naked to a table. Which would work better if she didn't look like someone's mom.

This movie is the 3rd film in the "Ginger Trilogy" after "Ginger" and "The Abductors" respectively. In this particular movie a high-ranking diplomat is kidnapped by a mysterious group who want information pertaining to the "Asian-American Trade Alliance" he was in the process of negotiating. When they discover that he doesn't have the knowledge they want they murder him and then set their sights on a higher level diplomat named "James L. Whitney III" (Scott Ellsworth) who will now assume the responsibility of negotiating the trade pact. Realizing that James Whitney is a potential target the CIA turns to an outside source and recruits "Ginger McAllister" (Cheri Caffaro) to essentially stay with him night and day in order to protect him. But neither the CIA nor Ginger fully fathom just how resourceful their enemy actually is. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk ruining it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this film had some definite good qualities with the two most noticeable being the presence of Cheri Caffaro and Jocelyn Peters (as "Ronnie St. Clair"). Unfortunately, it also suffered from some of the same weaknesses as the other two movies as well. For example, the combat scenes and dialogue were rather clumsy at times and tended to give the movie a Grade-B quality. In short, I thought this movie was essentially on the same level as its predecessors and have rated it accordingly. Average.

Say what you want, Cheri Caffaro is an amazing (and committed) screen presence. I can't comment on her acting since it's really beside the point.

Fearless nudity, she sings two numbers wearing almost nothing and puts it all out there. Can she sing? Again, beside the point.

She gets tied to a table fully nude for about 10 minutes.

What's the plot? Who cares?

Who else is in it? Who cares?

Is it a good or bad movie? Who cares?

You're just going to fast-forward anyway.

This third movie in the "Ginger" trilogy also has the benefit of Jocelyne Peters as the villain who also fearlessly does her full frontal nude scenes (and is also tied to a table for 10 minutes totally naked.)

Can Ms. Peters act? Who cares?

Soft-core, sexist, misogynistic trash like this, is, again, the reason fast-forward buttons were invented.