BaronBl00d As with the first two "Ginger" movies(Ginger and The Abductors), Girls are for Loving is fun in that cheesy 70s way that you will really only find in films from this decade. This one has the biggest budget of the three, the most competent actors, the best direction - in point of fact, it is easily the best made of the three. Cheri Caffaro as Ginger seems so at ease with her role in this one that her performance(and that word can be defined in oh so many ways) out-shines her previous two stints as the James Bond girl out this time to save some trade treaty fiasco. Plot-wise this one is sketchy at best, but you won't care what with Ginger being naked most of the time and when she is not she has on skin-tight white pants or some other revealing outfit. Aiding and abetting her is Jocelyne Peters as the villainess Ronnie St. Clair(love that name). Peters is beautiful, can act, and I just loved that voice. I am surprised she really didn't go on to do much after this film, but then being tied spread-eagled nude and then forced upon by a male in similar dress might not have spurred that career the way she might have hoped - too much laying on the job one might suppose. The film has a nice pace, lots of inferior yet entertaining action scenes, and some great one-liners(most delivered by Ginger). The low point of the film is Caffaro dressed in a blue fur belting out a song with lines like "Cheese entertains," etc... Caffaro cannot sing very well, but then again the scene is save by the number ultimately being a striptease act. While my favourite of the series is the first for more sentimental reasons and some God-awful sets and acting fashioned into enjoyable entertainment, Girls are for Loving is first-rate sleazy entertainment. Where is Caffaro now? Shouldn't Quentin Taranteno being using her in a film. She would be perfect in one of his vehicles.

movieman_kev Third and last in the Ginger trilogy. I watched the first two, so I have to finish the trilogy, that's the way I am for better or worse, in this case the latter. In this one Ginger is cold in to put a stop to ... insider trading?? Yup more or less that's what it is. She also acts WAY out of character by falling in love with a black man. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but when you set her up as absolutely hating blacks in the first one, you stick to the character no matter how despicable. Despite that this has all the ingredients of a Ginger film. S&M, stupid dialog, silly 'action'. It's as bad as the other two.Eye Candy: Cherri Caffaro, Jocelyne Peters and an unknown girl all get fully nude My Grade: D

julian kennedy Girls are for Loving: 4/10: The Ginger films have always been well…different. An acquired taste if you will. An acquired bad taste in particular. The rap against the first two Ginger films (besides the obvious fact that they are misogynistic in the extreme) is that if you took away the sadism, bondage, rape and acres of young nubile flesh on display you would have a pretty bad movie. This is completely true and as if to prove this fact Girls are for Loving removes the sadism, rape and nubile young flesh completely and is half hearted at best about bondage. So what we have left is one of the most confusing an inept action films I have ever seen.Sure there is nudity from the two stars (Cherri Caffaro and Jocelyne Peters) and while the ladies aren't quite ready to make up half the Golden Girls sitcom even Mr. Magoo wouldn't mistake them for nubile. (One suspects Caffaro demanded that the producers not allow any naked women less attractive than her after being horrible upstaged by the delicious Jennifer Brooks in her last outing The Abductors. This might also explain why the audience is also forced to sit through not one two entire songs sung by Caffaro in a Las Vegas style review.) The plot is about as silly as you can get. The bad guys fight like a combination of the Special Olympics and a zombie movie running at half speed. The explosions are half hearted .The sex scenes are... hold on what's the opposite of erotic. The film is shot in that Hart to Hart style of bad seventies television drama.On the plus side Timothy Brown isn't a bad male lead/action hero and there is a Kelsey Grammar look-alike that brought me much mirth. But this simply doesn't feel like a real Ginger movie. Towards the end of the film the villain captures the ambassador's nubile daughter so the government will give her stock tips (I told you the plot is silly) anyhow in the last two Ginger movies this nineteen-year old beauty would be stripped, whipped and god knows what else. Instead she is released unmolested and fully clothed. Caffaro, for the umpteenth time, however is tied naked to a table. Which would work better if she didn't look like someone's mom.

dinky-4 It's hard to decide which is more disturbing. That the makers of this movie actually thought viewers could be tricked into believing leading lady Cheri Caffero is beautiful, glamorous, and sophisticated, or that they actually believed it themselves. One doesn't know whether to cringe or laugh at the results.Surprisingly, the movie does have a bright spot of sorts. The movie begins when a "fourth assistant undersecretary" named "Steve" is stripped and kidnapped with his girlfriend from an A-frame house. The girlfriend is promptly shot dead but Steve is beat-up, questioned, and eventually executed by the evil Ms. St. Clair. The actor playing "Steve" is H-O-T yet he's not even listed in the movie's end credits. Who is this guy?The worst scene? So many choices, but the prize must go to Cheri Caffero's nightclub number when -- swathed in a cocoon of blue feathers -- she tries to sing and look sexy at the same time.