Agrega una trama en tu idiomaA lonely 'Stay-at-Home' Housewife is being watched every night through the bathroom window by a 'Peeping Tom', who is being put up to it by his friend. She eventually finds out and gets her ... Leer todoA lonely 'Stay-at-Home' Housewife is being watched every night through the bathroom window by a 'Peeping Tom', who is being put up to it by his friend. She eventually finds out and gets her revenge on them.A lonely 'Stay-at-Home' Housewife is being watched every night through the bathroom window by a 'Peeping Tom', who is being put up to it by his friend. She eventually finds out and gets her revenge on them.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Sean Barry-Weske
- Eddie
- (as Sean Barry)
- …
Fiona Richmond
- Suzanne
- (as Amber Harrison)
- …
Carole Catkin
- Jill
- (as Carol Catkin)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
NOT TONIGHT, DARLING is a surprisingly endearing British skin flick despite the obvious shortcomings of the plot and cast. A virtually forgotten low budget effort, this chronicles the adventures of a bored housewife who struggles with the inattentions of her husband and the Peeping Tom who spies on her when she's getting changed.
There really is no more plot to it than that - this is just a 'kitchen sink' style drama, enlivened with some sex scenes and a bit of skin here and there. Despite the fact that they're generally hopeless, I always get a kick out of this era of British film, where the scuzziness is outweighed by a great sense of realism and era authenticity. Hell, I feel nostalgic and I wasn't even there!
Fans will no doubt enjoy the cheesy song contributed by guest band 'Thunderclap Newman' - beaten only in terms of cheesiness by Stoneground's cameo in Dracula 1972 AD - and the general state of poor acting, particularly from the wooden male actors. Still, lead actress Luan Peters (TWINS OF EVIL) is a revelation: incredibly voluptuous and giving a sympathetic performance to boot.
There really is no more plot to it than that - this is just a 'kitchen sink' style drama, enlivened with some sex scenes and a bit of skin here and there. Despite the fact that they're generally hopeless, I always get a kick out of this era of British film, where the scuzziness is outweighed by a great sense of realism and era authenticity. Hell, I feel nostalgic and I wasn't even there!
Fans will no doubt enjoy the cheesy song contributed by guest band 'Thunderclap Newman' - beaten only in terms of cheesiness by Stoneground's cameo in Dracula 1972 AD - and the general state of poor acting, particularly from the wooden male actors. Still, lead actress Luan Peters (TWINS OF EVIL) is a revelation: incredibly voluptuous and giving a sympathetic performance to boot.
Another undistinguished attempt to exploit the BBFC's slightly more liberal policy from about 1970, with a title suggesting the sort of naughty comedy that the British public were so fond of. Instead they get the story of Karen, a housewife with a young son who's neglected by her cold and pompous husband, falls prey to the voyeuristic fantasies of a sleazy shop assistant, prior to being seduced and blackmailed into swinging parties and porn by the repellent Alex, played by usually clean-cut Aussie hero-type, Vincent Ball.
It's a pretty glum affair, enlivened by Luan Peters, lovely and sympathetic as the vulnerable Karen. The husband's strange attitude is not explored and the ending is abrupt and unsatisfactory. It does make compelling viewing though for those interested in its era, not least those who enjoy revelling in how awful they consider things were back then. Certainly Ball 'grooving' to Thunderclap Newman, in rehearsal at La Valbonne, is hard to forget. They may have only had one hit, but I thought the group's appearance was about the highlight. There's a fleeting glimpse of a young, scarcely recognisable Fiona Richmond, while Bill Shine who'd started his film career over forty years previously, is seen enjoying The Tiffany Sisters strip in a Soho dive. Making a 'guest appearance' (how one member of the cast can be a guest beats me) is another veteran, James Hayter, making his first fictional venture into the retail trade as the store manager, prior to his more famous roles as the celebrated Mr. Tebbs in ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and the voice of 'Mr. Kipling'.
It's a pretty glum affair, enlivened by Luan Peters, lovely and sympathetic as the vulnerable Karen. The husband's strange attitude is not explored and the ending is abrupt and unsatisfactory. It does make compelling viewing though for those interested in its era, not least those who enjoy revelling in how awful they consider things were back then. Certainly Ball 'grooving' to Thunderclap Newman, in rehearsal at La Valbonne, is hard to forget. They may have only had one hit, but I thought the group's appearance was about the highlight. There's a fleeting glimpse of a young, scarcely recognisable Fiona Richmond, while Bill Shine who'd started his film career over forty years previously, is seen enjoying The Tiffany Sisters strip in a Soho dive. Making a 'guest appearance' (how one member of the cast can be a guest beats me) is another veteran, James Hayter, making his first fictional venture into the retail trade as the store manager, prior to his more famous roles as the celebrated Mr. Tebbs in ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and the voice of 'Mr. Kipling'.
I saw this movie because I am a fan of Luan Peters and she looked great.
She was playing the role of a bored housewife....not trying to act! I believe this was made nearly 40 years ago...before all the digital, the CG, the high-tech that modern filmmakers are blessed with, but with a the little money that was available told a simple story of it's time.
The camera-work was unobtrusive...thank the Lord, unlike nowadays when cameras can go up somebody's nose or come out of their ****, for no other reason except... that the camera can! The mood of suburbia and the boredom was well displayed.
Someone writes, "Stop me if you've heard this one before: A bored housewife. A frigid husband. A scheming Lothario. A steamy affair. Secret photographs. Uh oh, blackmailed! Now she must star in some X-rated tapes or hubby will find out about her extra-marital activities....." This was 40 years ago...This was the original! The idea was so good, it's been copied hundreds of times DUH!
The people in the Olympics long ago ran as fast as they could in their time. Their numbers are laughingly slow compared to now, but they did their best and we should not make comparisons. Art is not comparative, art should be judged on its own merits. Luan rules OK!
She was playing the role of a bored housewife....not trying to act! I believe this was made nearly 40 years ago...before all the digital, the CG, the high-tech that modern filmmakers are blessed with, but with a the little money that was available told a simple story of it's time.
The camera-work was unobtrusive...thank the Lord, unlike nowadays when cameras can go up somebody's nose or come out of their ****, for no other reason except... that the camera can! The mood of suburbia and the boredom was well displayed.
Someone writes, "Stop me if you've heard this one before: A bored housewife. A frigid husband. A scheming Lothario. A steamy affair. Secret photographs. Uh oh, blackmailed! Now she must star in some X-rated tapes or hubby will find out about her extra-marital activities....." This was 40 years ago...This was the original! The idea was so good, it's been copied hundreds of times DUH!
The people in the Olympics long ago ran as fast as they could in their time. Their numbers are laughingly slow compared to now, but they did their best and we should not make comparisons. Art is not comparative, art should be judged on its own merits. Luan rules OK!
Confirming my theory that the 70s were the decade that taste forgot this movie has the production values of a school play and looks like it was shot in various crew members flats.
By modern standards it is utterly unsexy - it as also unfunny, undramatic, badly lit, the leaden dialogue is almost inaudible (spectacularly drowned out by traffic noises at one point) and there is no resolution to the incredibly thin story.
There is nothing to recommend it at all apart from the odd flash of breast - and a brief, weird interlude where two of the characters watch the band Thunderclap Newman rehearse a couple of numbers. (I guess that might be of historical interest to musicologists of the era... but it's easy to see why they only got to release one album.) The two watchers were shot without any idea of the music they were supposed to be listening to and probably had no playback to respond to so they tap their feet, nod their heads, and snap their fingers (groovy man!) in several random rhythms simultaneously - none of them unfortunately matching the music.
Avoid. (Why doesn't IMDb allow you to rate films as a zero ?)
By modern standards it is utterly unsexy - it as also unfunny, undramatic, badly lit, the leaden dialogue is almost inaudible (spectacularly drowned out by traffic noises at one point) and there is no resolution to the incredibly thin story.
There is nothing to recommend it at all apart from the odd flash of breast - and a brief, weird interlude where two of the characters watch the band Thunderclap Newman rehearse a couple of numbers. (I guess that might be of historical interest to musicologists of the era... but it's easy to see why they only got to release one album.) The two watchers were shot without any idea of the music they were supposed to be listening to and probably had no playback to respond to so they tap their feet, nod their heads, and snap their fingers (groovy man!) in several random rhythms simultaneously - none of them unfortunately matching the music.
Avoid. (Why doesn't IMDb allow you to rate films as a zero ?)
Back in 1971, if you had never seen this and someone summarised it as "young blonde wife, frustrated by her husband's total lack of libido, decides to explore her sexuality", then I'm sure you'd have parted with your 50p at the cinema just as I would.
However, you'd have barely had time to lick your drink-on-a-stick before you'd have realised you'd been sold a pup.
The film says nothing, the acting is dire, the direction non- existent, the storyline meanders, wanders, then concludes by saying "make of this what you will. I give up"
However, this film is not without redemption. Here's why:
a) If you ever wondered what a seedy Soho strip club looked like in the daytime, this is for you. And what about that compere? ("Okay, remove your raincoats")
b) Captain Harrison (Bill Shine) may not be on screen for long but he does have the best lines. ("He called me Bill. Well, it was my name)
c) You really have to see the camera-work in the health club scenes to believe it. The young lady on the vibrator belt especially.
d) Thunderclap Newman playing live (along the lines of The Yardbirds in 'Blow Up' or Alan Price in 'O Lucky Man'). A previous reviewer mentioned this would interest those interested in the music of the era. It does.
e) The, shall we say, 'incredible' dream scene in the grocer's shop. Hard to believe and more than a touch of The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band about it (if you recall Magical Mystery Tour).
So, all in all, a dreadful film if you look on it as a film - but a fascinating slice of what 1971 was capable of, if you come at it from another angle!
However, you'd have barely had time to lick your drink-on-a-stick before you'd have realised you'd been sold a pup.
The film says nothing, the acting is dire, the direction non- existent, the storyline meanders, wanders, then concludes by saying "make of this what you will. I give up"
However, this film is not without redemption. Here's why:
a) If you ever wondered what a seedy Soho strip club looked like in the daytime, this is for you. And what about that compere? ("Okay, remove your raincoats")
b) Captain Harrison (Bill Shine) may not be on screen for long but he does have the best lines. ("He called me Bill. Well, it was my name)
c) You really have to see the camera-work in the health club scenes to believe it. The young lady on the vibrator belt especially.
d) Thunderclap Newman playing live (along the lines of The Yardbirds in 'Blow Up' or Alan Price in 'O Lucky Man'). A previous reviewer mentioned this would interest those interested in the music of the era. It does.
e) The, shall we say, 'incredible' dream scene in the grocer's shop. Hard to believe and more than a touch of The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band about it (if you recall Magical Mystery Tour).
So, all in all, a dreadful film if you look on it as a film - but a fascinating slice of what 1971 was capable of, if you come at it from another angle!
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaFiona Richmond's first role. She is credited Amber Harrison. Richmond was working as a Playboy Bunny and modeling nude at the time she made this film. She also performed fully nude in the play Pyjama Tops in 1970. When she found out about the nudity, she said it amused her rather large appalled her and being naked on stage in front of a huge crowd sounded fun. That later led into posing fully nude in men's magazines and appearing nude in movies.
- ErroresWhen Thunderclap Newman begin performing Hollywood Dream, the guitar playing singer has a lit cigarette jammed into the top of his guitar fret board and wisps of cigarette smoke are clearly visible. The cigarette disappears then reappears between long shots and close-ups.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Not Tonight, Darling?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Not Tonight, Darling!
- Locaciones de filmación
- Londres, Inglaterra, Reino Unido(filmed entirely on location in)
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 30 minutos
- Mezcla de sonido
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Not Tonight, Darling (1971) officially released in Canada in English?
Responda