British rock star with a love-'em-and-leave-'em reputation. The tables are turned when four cute young girls kidnap the singer. After several days of sex and degradation, the poor fellow is ... Read allBritish rock star with a love-'em-and-leave-'em reputation. The tables are turned when four cute young girls kidnap the singer. After several days of sex and degradation, the poor fellow is rescued by his friends.British rock star with a love-'em-and-leave-'em reputation. The tables are turned when four cute young girls kidnap the singer. After several days of sex and degradation, the poor fellow is rescued by his friends.
- Awards
- 2 nominations total
Esther Anderson
- Melanie
- (as Ester Anderson)
Ricky Starr
- Ricki
- (as Ricki Starr)
Featured reviews
I have had my FOH film still of this that showed what looked like a roundabout but inside a large bed and a guy almost naked but tied spreadeagled and with four girls in short skirts and the outside that looked like a large bubble. I had never seen the film and never thought about it but then the other day when I was reading Mick Brown's book, Performance and it mentions Donald Cammell having helped the story of The Touchables after taking some idea from the 1971 Jagger film. Looking around on my shelves I found a copy of this 1967 film and decided to watch it. Of course, it turns out that is very strange but rather splendid. It doesn't make much sense but rather lovely and psychedelic with some decent music of Nirvana, Ferris Wheel and some of it from Pink Floyd. There is not much of a story but there is some wrestling and a kidnap of a mannikin of a film star and of a pop star really, but not really one and there is some gangsters and the director worked with the Beatles. Did I mention that this was very much of the sixties and very much of 1968.
The Touchables had intrigued me for a decade or more before I had the opportunity (thanks to FXM) to actually see it. It would have been for the best if they hadn't programmed it. The ONLY reasons to watch The Touchables are if you a)have an insatiable appetite for plotless 60s fashion shows masquerading as films, or b)you want to hear the terrific theme song by the (English) Nirvana. There's also a snippet of The Pink Floyd's Interstellar Overdrive used inexplicably as background music during a boat ride, but it's precious little consolation for sitting through this piece of ripe tripe.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Did you know
- TriviaMonika Ringwald's debut.
- Alternate versionsOriginally rated "R" when released in 1968. In 1973 the film was edited to be re-rated "PG" for a re-release. I have a 93 min version from Australian television. The complete original film does not circulate at this time.
- SoundtracksAll of Us (The Touchables theme)
by Nirvana
- How long is The Touchables?Powered by Alexa
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content