The Touchables

You can't spoil giving anything away. The plot's thinner than a paper towel. From the opening, pre-credit scene, you quickly realise that whoever directed this..'film' was using his 'direction' as a chick-magnet. Well, the women who...'star,' can't act. But they're really good at applying eye makeup and posing (well, the posing's a little bit tired) The male star- Christian- the 'rock' boy is a really good looking, pouty-lipped, (but with an annoying adenoidal lower class voice/accent, that's grating even if that turns you on) late 60's quintessential pop star (though this one, David Anthony- didn't have any songs out, or at least any hits, or...well, he's very cute (and does seem a bit 'light in the loafers).

This movie's one of those you can watch in fast forward. You won't miss any plot (it's just a lot of bad pop art in the background, like Faux - Warhollian type stuff, Jimi Hendrix psychedelic posters- and Jimi WAS alive at this time),Chiquita bananas, with the girls cavorting for the camera. The best set is the AWESOME gigantic bubble where half the movie takes place in. I WANT THIS BUBBLE (and David Anthony)!

I'm gonna agree with John Seal, and what he said in 1999. This movie's...BAD. Just watch it in fast forward, look at the pretty boy, pretty girls, and then you're done.

Remember this was an X rated flick back then, so it's really like a bad Benny Hill, in terms of the TITillations-wink wink.

I was a great fan of British wrestling and often went to venues on North and Central London. It was great fun. I well remember Ricki Starr who wrestled in ballet shoes and was a predecessor of Adrian Street. I had virtually given up on this film when up pops another bout which is refereed by the unforgettable Max Ward. He of the gravel voice who could make a count last an eternity.

As for the rest of the film it is instantly forgettable. How could Ian Le Frenais write this.

The problem was that after the success of British films in the States in the early sixties,the American film companies decided to invest heavily in British films and came a cropper. Who in their right mind could think that the script was worth filming.

All my life I've been mad about 60's mod films. I just love movies from the 60's with loads of cool clothes and style. I thought I knew about most of them until I just recently found out about "The Touchables", which is just all mod style. So much so, that there's almost no plot at all. The clothes and the visuals are fantastic but it all just seems to be a bunch advertisements strung together, one after the other.

After a while I almost lost interest since it was almost too much style. The girls are very pretty but, apart from the dark one, all of them are very uninteresting (and quite bad actors to boot!). The prettyboy pop star is almost better than them combined!

The real star of the film is the absolutely AMAZING gigantic bubble house they reside in. That knocked me out and makes this film worth watching again! The set design should have won awards!!!!

How come this film is so unknown? I gather that this film was not a hit at the time but to be so forgotten is strange... Does anyone know?

Anyone can make a movie, it's enough to have a camera and a few actors. It doesn't matter if they are good or bad. The script doesn't really matter, does it? It can goes even without one, especially if you have a few pairs of panties on some sexy asses, plus a few locations, some cars, a motorboat, a transparent dome in Frensham Ponds... Not bad, right? We gonna have a movie! I came across this and said to myself, English, 1968, a title that takes me to the American series "The Untouchables... It's got to be something of it, let's check! Now, I would like to say something good about this movie but it's rather difficult, I can not, my dignity does not let me... OK OK, let's give it a chance and think that it's a surrealist artwork... No, it doesn't work, it's too... moronic. Oh, maybe it's the pure British replica of Antonioni's "Blow-up" and "Zabriskie Point" in only one film... Who wouldn't like to be kidnapped by four young beautiful girls, taken to a hiding place somewhere and gently softly raped? No, I'm afraid it's just an hour and a half of pure boredom!

It is true to say that this movie is not good, to say the least. But it does capture some of the craziness of the time.1968 was a very good time to be young & living in London, as I was. I also worked on the dubbing of this movie at Shepperton Film Studios. It still brings back good memories of the time & I wouldn't be without a copy, which took me a long time to find. The girls in the movie were quite well known at the time, one of them became the late Peter Cook's second wife, & all of them were attractive. David Anthony The mail lead was also an icon of the time, with many girls pinning his picture to their bedroom wall. The Dome in the film was built at Frencham Ponds in Surrey & there is nothing of it left.

In many ways the movie depicts the beginnings of women asserting themselves & being seen to be in control of their lives in a much more controlled way than the previous generation. The plot is simple; four girls capture a pop star & have their wicked way with him. There are other influences in the movie with gangsters & a well known wrestler of the time. What is immediately striking is that all the girls speak good English with educated accents, something that is sadly lacking in English movies of this type today. This movie is not an icon, as in "Wonderwall" for example, but it does have something.