Hot Girls for Men Only (1967) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Tongue In Cheek
malcolmgsw3 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Pete Walker is now mainly remembered for his horror films.This is a rather strange short.David Keenan plays a journalist with a very jealous and possessive girlfriend..He is employed by a publisher who is on a moral crusade.However in reality he is rather a litigation.So when he is taken to meet the publisher at his country mansion he finds half a dozen young women lounging around in bikinis.There is also a photographic studio where there is a photographer taking photos of the girls without their tops.The girlfriend traces Keenan to the mansion.There then ensues a farcical climax at a restaurant.It is difficult to see what audience this was made for,certainly not a sex film and certainly not funny.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Short little film that's a tease of skin!
blanbrn31 December 2016
Just watched this 1968 film a London independent one from Paul Walker "For Men Only" and it's a little tease of skin and sex. It features plenty of hot girls to look at. The story is simple a London fashion columnist leaves a model fashion company only to take a job with a small town publisher, yet the company is not what it seems or advertised as! Soon it's a showcase for the best and most hot and young beautiful women around in lingerie and sexy hot swimsuits! Overall it's a nice tease that shows skin and leather and lace only to take somewhat of a surprise twist in the end! Only 40 minutes so it's a sexy short that's some candy on the eyes!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Just an excuse
Leofwine_draca18 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
FOR MEN ONLY is a short British comedy from Pete Walker, later making a name for himself in the horror circuit. This is one of his more lacklustre works, with negligible plotting and a real sense of boredom which becomes apparent five minutes in. The dull hero gets a job at a religious publisher only to discover that it also publishes a girlie mag, while at the same time his girlfriend tracks down his movements. The whole thing is well shot, certainly, but just feels like an excuse to parade a number of pretty young actresses and models in their bikinis.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Confusing and boring, but good nudity
Groverdox3 February 2018
"For Men Only" is a silly and confusing slice of late-sixties sexploitation.

Sillyness we don't mind, but confusion can become tedious, and you find yourself only watching when there is someone naked on screen, and that is, admittedly, often.

The plot is something to do with a young man who gets a job at a religious magazine, only to find out that this is a cover for a porno mag. He encounters a bunch of naked women at the magazine's headquarters while his paranoid girlfriend tries to track him down to ensure he's not cheating on her.

Meanwhile, in a bizarre and incongruous sub-plot, two evil henchmen from a rival magazine attempt to kidnap the girls, and possibly to beat and rape them. They tie them up, naked, in a barn.

"For Men Only" is very confusingly plotted. It exists for one reason only, and that's to show "hot girls" in the nude. Even people who hate this movie, and I wouldn't blame them for hating it, would have to concede that in regards to nudity, "For Men Only" delivers.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
ForMenOnly
gavcrimson24 September 2020
Would anyone stumbling out of For Men Only in 1967, ever imagine that Pete Walker would amount to something as a film director, let alone become a bona fide auteur of 1970s British horror cinema?, propably not. Walker's early films tend to look like something Harrison Marks would have made on a really off-day...from a script he'd found in Talbot Rothwell's dustbin. Although there are a couple of Walker traits present and correct here, ineffectual male characters, hypocritical authority figures and (in the long version) crime elements and bondage, it wouldn't be until 1970 that Walker really got it together and made one of his best films 'Cool it Carol'.

A featurette length, Eady cash grab in the UK, Walker was obliged to shoot additional sleaze footage for the US release (as 'Hot Girls for Men Only') which brought the running time to just over an hour and introduced a gangster subplot to the film that makes it slightly more bearable. The Hot Girls for Men Only version was also shown in UK membership only sex cinemas, and the additional footage released by Walker himself on the 8mm market as two short films 'The Round-Up' and 'Planned Seduction'.

Teri Martine, who was in the background for a couple of scenes in For Men Only, told me she eventually stopped working for Walker, due to the behaviour of his over possessive glamour model girlfriend Donna Marlowe (later Donna Reading) who'd get jealous of the other models that worked for him and give them earache because of it. So this story of a henpecked playboy with a possessive girlfriend is propably autobiographical.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Harmless fluff
Woodyanders12 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Sophisticated London fashion columnist Freddie Horne (amiable David Kernan) takes a job with a small town publisher and moral crusader who isn't what he appears to be. Writer/director Pete Walker keeps the entertaining story moving along at a swift pace, maintains a likable breezy tone throughout, and nicely captures the carefree vibe of swinging 60's mod England. Moreover, it's acted with aplomb by an enthusiastic cast, with especially zesty contributions from Derek Aylward as easygoing bon vivant Miles Fanthorpe, lovely Andrea Allan as Horne's perky fiancé Rosalie, Glyn Worsnip as swishy photographer Rudolph, and Tom Gill as Rosalie's stern disapproving dad. A bevy of beautiful birds cavorting about in their underwear supplies a wealth of yummy eye candy. Best of all, this short'n'snappy 40-minute movie has a sweetly inoffensive charm, with no explicit nudity and an amusing sense of good-natured humor. A pleasant romp.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed