Madam'

...by which I mean it is incredibly bland given the subject matter. In fact it was the only theatrical feature from a very prolific TV director, and feels like a lethargic endless episode of, say, "Love American Style." I wanted to see it because I figured it couldn't be THAT bad--after all, Lynne Redgrave was a wonderful actor and particularly talented comedienne. But for the most part this isn't even played for comedy, and her Xaviera is just a nice woman with an accent, some funny outfits, and no personality whatsoever. You can't blame Redgrave--the movie has no perspective on its subject, beyond a weird innocuousness, so she seems entirely left to her own devices. And apparently she was only cast a few days before they started filming, so she had no time to prepare for it.

It's a dull enterprise that is neither sexy or funny (let alone dramatic or insightful), and too slick in a televisual way to have a whiff of drive-in sleaze, which it would have actually benefitted from. So it's a film about the decade's most famous sex worker that feels like a PG-rated costume party with a "prostitute" theme that the attendees are too self-conscious even to realize in particularly naughty fashion--this is one of the most CLOTHED movies dominated by women of the decade. I've forgotten which of the other "Happy Hooker" movies I've seen, apart from remembering that they're all bad. But I expected this one to be a little better than the Joey Heatherton and Connie Stevens ones, and while I remember nothing about them, it may actually be the worst of them, just cuz it's so blah.

Well, there's not much smut to be had here. Not much humor, really, either. So what does this film have to recommend it? Well, Lynn Redgrave wears a series of smashing early-70s outfits--floppy hats, go-go boots, backless evening gowns, big-sleeved minidresses... and the other hookers have some fresh attire as well (some charming negligees, lavender disco dresses, etc.). And some of the scenes of her tricks are mildly amusing (although many inadvertently so), particularly the one where she does a reverse striptease while reciting a business report.

Still, it starts off excruciatingly slow and you can see what plot twists there are coming a mile away with bludgeoning sticks in hand. And the party scenes in the brothel aren't nearly as much fun as you'd expect, considering as the 70s was a golden era for movie party scenes and this is supposedly a whorehouse. Not worth watching, really, although it is worth flipping back and forth to if there's not much else on.

The Happy Hooker (1975) was loosely based upon the best seller about of the era's most popular and successful madam's. Lynn Redgrave stars as the happy one. But the film is just bad in all aspects. It fails at being an "adult" comedy and it fails at being a biography. I wouldn't even catagorize it in the "trying too hard" section because it didn't even do that. Boring stuff that deserves to be buried. May it never see the light of day. By the way, this movie ruined my tastes for sundaes and banana splits. Don't watch this one. The sequels are a lot better than this one. That's not saying much either because they're both bad.

Followed by "Happy Hooker Goes to Washington" and "Happy Hooker Goes to Hollywood". Too tame and way too lame.

Not recommended.

F

A very tame adult comedy that despite its title and its somewhat of a cult reputation does not contain any sex whatsoever (unless I missed something). There was an opportunity here to create a seriously dirty film but you get the sense that the makers were to gutless to take the chance. Instead all you are left with is a mildly amusing comedy where the most explicit image is Lynn Redgrave in her panties. A disappointment.

Purportedly this is supposed to be a film version of Xavier Hollander's X rated book. What you get is a PG version of it! Seriously--what were they thinking? A good strong R rated version of her book could have been made but this one wimps out completely. There's no sex and no nudity (unless you count a shot of a guys butt as nudity). It's sanitized to the point where you could have gotten Julie Andrews to do it! There's talk about sex but it's hardly explicit and certainly not enough to warrant an R rating. Even worse it's pretty dull. Hard to believe that a movie about a woman who was a prostitute could be dull--but it is! Lynn Redgrave gives a very good performance (that's why i give this a 3) but that's not enough to recommend this. The sequels were much more explicit (and more fun). Not worth anyone's time.