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

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.

This was the third and last of the B movies written and directed by Don Schain, that featured Cheri Caffaro as Ginger, a private investigator whose activities frequently result in her losing her clothing and finding herself in sexually compromising situations - both welcome and unwelcome. It appears to have been the one with the highest budget, and it clearly suffers from the problem that each new film in such a series has to outdo all the previous ones in several important respects if the interest of the viewers is to be maintained. This is a common problem with many film series. It effectively and quite quickly destroyed my interest in the (not dissimilar) James Bond series where more and more exotic, unreal, and unnecessary special effects were felt to be necessary in each new film.. Since the two later Ginger films each attempted to outdo the first one in their exploitation of both sex and violence, it may be as well that there were no more than three of these films. For example, this film opens with a sequence showing raiders attacking a holiday chalet, torching it and murdering the couple on vacation there. This sequence is a perfect example of gratuitous and unnecessary violence -even granting that these events had an important role in the story, they could have been covered more effectively by filming a briefing session for Ginger in which these events were featured only through newspaper, TV or police reports. I saw all three of these films soon after they were first released, but until very recently had not seen them since. However when commenting to IMDb on a more recent film of the same genre, I found myself spontaneously commenting that the films in the Ginger series had been much better, so I recently re-watched both this film and "Ginger", the first one in the series, to determine whether this impression was an illusion which would be destroyed if I watched them again. I quickly appreciated that my favorable memories of these films were undoubtedly coloured by the facts both that they broke new ground at the time they were released, and that I was watching them through the eyes of relative youth. However I believe there were other reasons why I did find them less forgettable than the many other films of the same type which I must have seen since, and I have discussed these reasons in the comments I am simultaneously submitting to IMDb on the film "Ginger". Here I would like to comment primarily on some other aspects of these films.When these films first appeared, Cheri Caffaro a native of Miami was widely referred to as a Brigitte Bardot look alike; and, as she showed more acting ability than most of the stars of the B movies of the period (admittedly not much acting is required in this class of film), there were suggestions that she might well be able to move on to mainstream Hollywood parts. She did in fact act in several films other than the Ginger films, but these were all typical B movies as the Hollywood system at the time created a barrier between the studios producing B movies and those producing mainstream films which was almost impossible to penetrate. (Even Marilyn Monroe, after succeeding in mainstream films, encountered major problems when it was revealed that she had previously posed for figure studies for a still photographer.) This rather rigid distinction stopped most attempts to produce B movies with any real artistic qualities, and the Ginger films were all straight sexploitation movies. Their audience was primarily young couples visiting drive-in cinemas or attending the late night showings at conventional movie houses, and the main attraction for the woman was watching a private investigator who could put both male colleagues and adversaries in their place, whilst that for the man was nudity and more nudity. (After all, he had done the right thing by taking his girl to the cinema, otherwise he could have been in the local bar with his pals watching the strippers!) Clearly the stars of such films had to be prepared to deliver, and there is no point in criticising their roles on this score. Nevertheless the men in the audiences also usually expected some measure of violence, as well as threatened violence when one of the "good guys or girls" was captured by the gang. As my comments about the opening sequence of this film indicated, I am old fashioned enough to believe that such violence should be limited to circumstances where it is a necessary part of the story line. But not everyone would agree with me so perhaps this is also not a valid criticism.However in this film Ginger showed quickly that she was a threat to the conspirators and, with the example of the first sequence in mind, it seems clear that she should have been a target for immediate elimination by them if she was captured. Instead when this occurred her captors amused themselves by trying to excite her sexually. This is the sort of highly improbable incident that certainly fits in with the theme of the movie but does not fit with the basic story line. Such concerns must affect the evaluation of a movie by a critic, but do not usually have much influence on its acceptability to its intended audience. After considering all such issues, I am left in the position where I feel that this was a well made movie of its kind, and was much better than many of its later imitations. It deserves a reasonable rating based on this assessment, but it could never receive the type of high rating one might give to a film which attempts to leave its viewers with a significant message or conclusion to think about. Six out of ten.

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.