Emily (1976)

Good concept, poorly executed.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

EMILY is something of an overrated film for me. As a film, it has its fans but I personally fail to see what all of the fuss is about. It's a simple vehicle for erotic starlet Koo Stark, she of the royal scandal, and contains a very slim kind of story which plays out very slowly with hardly anything in the way of action. The film is set in 1928 which is perhaps the most interesting thing about it, giving the director a chance to show off some grand old fashions, country houses, and class distinctions, but otherwise this slight tale could be set in any era.Stark plays a young woman desperate to lose her virginity before she marries. That's all there is to the tale. A sub-plot involves a maid and her lover, while a queue of middle-aged gentlemen show up to attempt to get into Stark's affections. Stark herself is regularly naked but doesn't show much in the way of acting talent and the characterisation is next to nil in this picture. I found it a slog to sit through, if I'm honest.

This is kind of a British version of "Emmanuelle", which means it is quite a bit tamer, but every bit as stupid, as the Continental films. For no real reason (other than a sorry attempt at classiness), it is set in the 1920's "Flapper" era. It is basically about a young girl who returns home from boarding to school to discover that her widowed mother, her mother's friends, and even her timid maid are all (gasp!) sexually active. She plots to lose her own virginity, first to a brash young pilot, but ultimately to a bisexual female painter and her husband, and. . .well, that's about it.The principal asset(with emphasis on the first three letters of the word)of this film is the beautiful Koo Stark, who would have been the Ducchess of York if not for the scandal surrounding her appearance in films like this. Stark is not much more talented than Sylvia Kristel, Laura Gemser, et. al., but she is at least halfway believable as a naive virgin. She also might (with big emphasis on "might")be one of the few European actresses of the era whose full-frontal nude scenes are worth the pain of sitting through this kind of pretentious Euro-tripe. Recommended for all the drooling sex fiends out there if no one else.

I saw the movie when i was a teen ager and found it interesting only because Koo Stark, who at that time was in close contention with the Royal family, was exposed in it. I recently watched it again and was more disappointed. The movie is horribly directed and acted all through.It contains unbelievable scene sequence and the story is so unrealistic that it starts to bore after fifteen minutes. I wonder whether there is any connection of the plot with the writing of the legend Marquis de Sade. Everyone in the movie seem to be obsessed with one and only one feeling, and that is sex. The major sex scene at the end of the movie is also unerotic and boring. Don't watch this movie even if u r a fan of Koo Stark.

An attempt at some semblance of soft-core porn that is neither enticing, nor the least bit interesting. It's the kind of movie a 12 year old watches at three a.m. only to see a pair of breasts, then to be disappointed when they don't see enough of them and the result is about 10 minutes of nudity and about 1 hour and 15 minutes of useless dialogue.