This movie is the 3rd film in the "Ginger Trilogy" after "Ginger" and "The Abductors" respectively. In this particular movie a high-ranking diplomat is kidnapped by a mysterious group who want information pertaining to the "Asian-American Trade Alliance" he was in the process of negotiating. When they discover that he has doesn't have the knowledge they want they murder him and then set their sights on a higher level diplomat named "James L. Whitney III" (Scott Ellsworth) who will now assume the responsibility of negotiating the trade pact. Realizing that James Whitney is a potential target the CIA turns to an outside source and recruits "Ginger McAllister" to essentially stay with him night and day in order to protect him. But neither the CIA nor Ginger fully fathom just how resourceful their enemy actually is. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk ruining it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this film had some definite good qualities with the two most noticeable being the presence of Cheri Caffaro and Jocelyn Peters (as "Ronnie St. Clair"). Unfortunately, it also suffered from some of the same weaknesses as the other two movies as well. For example, the combat scenes and dialogue were rather clumsy at times and tended to give the movie a Grade-B quality. In short, I thought this movie was essentially on the same level as its predecessors and have rated it accordingly. Average.

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.

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

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.