Poor Lisa Foster (Raines)who is now a 48 year old highly regarded and successful movie writer, technician and producer. She was barely (excuse the pun) 18 when she made this sex romp. She has changed her name and is variously reported as hailing from England or Canada, depending on which source is consulted. No doubt all of this ambiguity is designed to hide the fact that this beautiful, elegant and successful movie producer (see her bio here on IMDb) made this porn film back in 1982 when she was a teenager. And what a gorgeous display, leaving absolutely nothing to the imagination, it is! I agree with all of the reviewers who have said what a beautiful form she casts. Cleland's novel calls for a virginal 15 year old girl of nubile proportions and Lisa fits the description perfectly.Where I part company, however, with other reviewers, is the somewhat guilt-ridden insistence of some that this movie is "not pornography", since it is true to the 1790's novel. Hogwash. Cleland's novel is pure pornography, designed solely to titillate the reader. This movie also more than fulfils that singular purpose. She is naked for significant periods of time in the movie precisely because of the erotic purpose. It fulfils no different purpose than a skin magazine. The only difference, of course, is that the viewer is blessed with seeing a beautiful 18 year old woman in her natural glory without any plastic adornments or alterations. Lisa Foster(Raines) regrets this totally. The rest of us do not.

Fanny Hill, Memoirs Of A Woman Of Pleasure first appeared as a book by John Cleland in 1748. For its time, the book contained some explicit, orgiastic sexual episodes. It has since become famous as the greatest work of erotic fiction ever written, heavily censored at various times in various countries, but widely read and constantly in print for over 250 years. Having read the book, I was quite interested to see what this film adaptation of it might offer. Sadly the result is a rather amateurish, tediously repetitive softcore "period porno". Few who value literature or cinema as serious artistic mediums will find a great deal to whet their appetite here.Virginal girl Fanny Hill (Lisa Raines) arrives in 18th century London friendless and virtually penniless. She is soon taken in by a seemingly kind and caring elderly lady named Mrs Brown (Paddy O'Neil), who claims to own one of the best "houses" in London. It takes a while for Fanny to realise it, but she gradually awakens to the fact that she is housed in a brothel and is being groomed to become a woman of pleasure. A handsome stranger named Charles (Jonathan York) is smitten by Fanny and arranges for her to escape from Mrs Brown's establishment. The pair soon fall in love and set up a home, but Charles's father disapproves and arranges for his son to be unwittingly shipped away to the East Indies. Alone and pregnant, Fanny tries to make the best of her lot, stumbling from one doomed love affair to the next. She eventually finds herself turning back to a life of prostitution in the slightly more dignified establishment of Mrs Cole (Shelley Winters). Here Fanny becomes the favourite "woman of pleasure" of a rich old man called Mr Barville (Wilfrid Hyde-White). When Barville dies, he leaves Fanny his entire fortune – enough money for her to live out the rest of her life in comfort. Her happiness is complete when she bumps, by chance, into her former lover Charles, returned from the East Indies and desperate to find his long-lost lover.The whole story centres on Raines as the titular character, and she is actually one of the few things about the film that works. She plays the young, desirable, virginal heroine surprisingly well and does what she can to hold the movie together. The special guest stars (Oliver Reed, Shelley Winters and Wilfrid Hyde-White) are unexpectedly the ones who DON'T do enough to justify their star billing – Reed, especially, seems to act as if he wishes he were elsewhere. The music by Paul Hoffert is distractingly irritating throughout, while many of the sets and costumes merely point up the film's relatively low budget. The narrative itself has little of the book's richness or insight. This film version moves from sex scene to sex scene, barely dwelling on anything other than the bums, tits and pubic hair. Actual character development and motivation is nowhere to be found. Worse still, more than half of the sex scenes are played for laughs, with comical facial expressions and jaunty musical scoring that immediately makes one think of those saucy British comedies of the mid-'70s. All things considered, Fanny Hill is a failed attempt to adapt a literary classic into a worthwhile film.

I have to admit that I was one of those people who, let's say, were not very best pleased when Fanny Hill was first released. Some of the thoughts that came to mind, I am afraid, I cannot repeat. So what's changed? A few weeks ago, I heard that a extremely talented screenwriter is adapting Fanny Hill for one of the main TV channels here in the UK, I decided to do some researched. I got myself the John Cleland book, and the DVD with Lisa Foster, expecting the worse. The book is very good, go read it. The DVD was fantastic, go watch it! The storyline is good, it was very well filmed with lots of good period pieces, quite authentic as well, and follows quite well the book. Having read the book first and then watch the DVD, I was not disappointed. I thought the erotic aspects, of which there were lots, with lots of nudity, were tastefully presented.The acting? Surprisingly good. Let's put aside the over acting by big names like Oliver Reed and Shelley Winters, they were good and amusing, but at best were the support act. The star's Lisa Foster, or Lisa Raines. I thought she was very beautiful, with an excellent body, and you can see a lot of her. The movie, the story, called for lots of nudity, and I did not feel that any nude scenes were unnecessary, or out of context. She showed what a good actress she is. Nudity aside, she could act, the story line required the show of innocence, a sense of naughtiness, excitement, adventure, sadness, elation, Lisa Foster showed all of these. I am very surprised by her entry in this database that this was probably her most major piece of work. What a shame. I am sure that when the movie was first released, Lisa was probably put into some sort of category like 'actress who likes taking clothes of', and may have accounted for the lack of good roles after that. Shame that she made the movie 20 years too early.As a woman, and a married woman with kids, I am not afraid to say that Fanny Hill is a very good movie, and Lisa Foster is a very good actress. I have since seen the movie again, with a bunch of friends who had the same thought as me when it was first released, and they loved it too.If you have not seen the movie, go watch it.

Fanny Hill is by no means a badly made film, but it was a disappointing failure even though it is closely based on a historically important book, John Cleland's "Fanny Hill - Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", with which most of us born in the U.K. became familiar through Eng. Lit. classes. As I remember these classes, they started with Shakespeare, continued with Shakespeare again, made reference to Christopher Marlowe, recognised the importance of Samuel Pepys both as diarist and historian, and of Boswell as the father of biography, discussed the role of both Daniel Defoe (Moll Flanders) and John Cleland (Fanny Hill) as early writers of novels, and then rapidly progressed into the riches of nineteenth century English prose. Both Moll Flanders and Fanny Hill are erotic novels that have earned a major reputation far beyond the British Isles. The dust cover of my copy of "FannyHill" carried the comment that 'this is one of the most celebrated fictional works of all time', adding that 'it is many years since Fanny Hill was published even clandestinely' and 'open publication is a novelty made possible only by the more sensible standards of our age, and by a deft editorial touch'. This may be an exaggeration - a New York court in 1963 dismissed an application to ban Fanny Hill as obscene with the comment that it does not contain one obscene word. But there is no question that it is an erotic novel. When any company films such a novel we should surely expect its pedigree to be recognised - the attempt should be made to create an erotic film from any book internationally regarded as a significant piece of erotic literature. Unfortunately this film was created in Britain at the end of the 1970's, a decade when British sex comedies were ten a penny. French directors of this period frequently produced films such as Emmanuelle with genuine claims to be erotic. But contemporary English directors, who could film a romance with sympathy and appreciation, seemed incapable of filming its culmination except as a ludicrous or hilarious performance by the couple concerned. During the decade prior to Fanny Hill, most British sex comedies treated the sex act as intrinsically humorous - we need only remember films such as "Can you keep it up for a week?" or "Confessions of a Handyman". Some were quite well made and remain fun to watch - this is why they constantly reappear on late night television programs - but they are not erotic. However they were the style of film that British directors of the period felt constrained to produce if ever the words "sex comedy" were uttered,. and this style could hardly be less appropriate for a meaningful movie presentation of the classic novel Fanny Hill. Fanny Hill should have been an important erotic film comparable to Emmanuelle and, like Emmanuelle, it should have remained a film that cinema buffs still periodically search out to view again. Instead it is virtually forgotten - I do not believe that it has ever been released as a DVD, and it would probably not even be easy to buy a tape copy in North America today. The IMDb database currently lists two viewer comments on the film (this should be the third!). Other films with far less potential, but which provide what their viewers expect, continue to generate fresh comments even 20 years later . What went wrong? Fanny Hill is quite well filmed and is a period piece with all the trimmings -stagecoaches on narrow dusty roads, period costumes, delightful old houses etc. This alone usually guarantees success. The acting is probably at least of average quality.I believe this film failed because the story is treated as a romp which under a different title might have still been watched. Some of the sequences with Mrs Brown's girls viewing what goes on in the various bedrooms through concealed peepholes, as well as the scene featuring a totally uninhibited eighteenth century party, remain quite enjoyable. In a film with lesser pretensions this would have been enough to ensure its ongoing success as a comedy. But here something more was needed. Lisa Foster (Lisa Raines) portrayed an attractive and playful Fanny who, except perhaps at the end when she rushes downstairs to open the door to Charles and is carried upstairs in his arms, seldom appears very involved. Collectively most of Mrs Brown's girls behaved more like seniors in a finishing school than young women forced by economic necessity to market their charms. Eliminating eroticism in favour of humour may be legitimate if no erotic expectations exist; but it is the knell of death for a film based on a classic erotic novel. Some recent British Directors are capable of creating erotic films, and had Fanny Hill been directed by, for example, Ken Russell it might have been much more successful. One last point - John Cleland's book is written largely in autobiographical form, with Fanny herself relating her experiences as well as explaining how she viewed them. It has been suggested that the book contains nothing but a woman's experiences, and that Cleland must have served simply as a cover for a possibly partly autobiographical book written by one of his female friends. A more recent Brazilian film production under the same name (Fanny Hill 1995 - written and directed by Valentine Palmer) attempts to recreate the story with Fanny's voice alone explaining what is going on during each scene. This sounds an extremely interesting way in which to interpret the novel on the screen, and I would very much like to have the opportunity to see this film. However it is not listed by Amazon, and so far the chance to do so has not come my way.