I accidentally saw some of this tripe on a minor UK channel. Of the presently 3 other reviews, two (Grover & Leo) are quite accurate, British 'sexploitation' guff from the 60s or 70s, derisory plot and dialogue, just get some tits and pubic hair on screen to please the intended audience of blokes who'd just come out of the pub on a Friday or Sat night?
Now I've seen IMDB, I realise that the lowlife magazine and club owner is played by Bill Kerr, once of radio fame with Tony Hancock. He had an American accent in this, so fooled me. His character is named 'Hugh Jampton' - so you can guess the bubbling comedy in the rest of the script?!! -- a joke I first heard in about the 3rd year (maybe 60 years ago?). Other variants of that joke wouuld be Hugh Jarss, Hugh Jears, Hugh Jooter, Hugh Jardon, Hugh Janus and Hugh Jedd (etc).
The 'plot' is almost non-existent, it's just an excuse to show some naked and admittedly very pretty girls (& some gorgeous breasts) romping with the 'star' (who I see complains that "sex films ruined my career" -- he apparently doesn't realise that he was never very likely to be getting Bafta or Oscar nominations?!).
Two of those reviews have rated this tosh as a '3' - well, as I said, there were some lovely breasts, and the star DID show his, er, 'equipment' a few times, perhaps they enjoyed that? BUT -- the other review, quite bizarre, has given the film a TEN. WHAT???!! This is SUPPOSED to be OUT of TEN on IMDB. . .not a million?!
Give THIS twaddle a TEN, and what do you score, say, Casablanca, Some Like It Hot, Schindler's List, etc (put in your own fav great films)?!! Just bonkers!