User reviews

About 15 minutes into this quirky film I was ready to proclaim it a must see and to bill it as the best movie no one has seen or even heard about. After all it was Coppola's masters thesis for film school. It has Elizabeth Hartman successfully playing against type as a sexy (somewhat psycho) Greenwich Village ingénue. It has Peter Kastner, Rip Torn, Geraldine Page and Julie Harris playing characters more bizarre than anything in "Harold and Maude" (it reminds you a lot of that film and may have inspired it). It has Karen Black doing a toned down version of the Rayette Dipesto character she would play in "Five Easy Pieces". It has a lively sound track by the Lovin' Spoonful. It even has Coppola cutting in extensive gruesome footage from his first film "Dementia 13".

Unfortunately by the halfway point of "You're a Big Boy Now" it totally runs out of steam and you begin to understand that its obscurity is well-deserved. Coppola's script is the problem because the cast are generally excellent and you can tell they had a lot of fun making the film. Even minor cast members like Dolph Sweet do a good job and there are great little sequences like Kastner's after dark explorations of the New York City streets. But unlike "Herald and Maude", Coppola says nothing with this film; consequently it ends up as a classic case of the whole being considerably less than the sum of its parts.

I am not in love with Coppola as a director, but even those who are will acknowledge the incredible distance between his good stuff and the vast majority of his films. This is not his good stuff but is worth checking out if you like Hartman, Harris, and Page.

The most famous movie to look at the younger generation's disillusionment with the American way of life is "The Graduate", but Francis Ford Coppola's "You're a Big Boy Now" also offers some insight. The young protagonist is a character very much like Ben Braddock: born into an affluent family that plans for him to be a big success. But this young man actively seeks out a new life, and he befriends a go-go dancer...but that's not all.

A lot of the humor is cutaway humor. In the end the movie isn't a masterpiece but has some funny stuff. It's sort of a cross between the zany comedies that dominated the '60s and a Woody Allen movie. One of the most interesting things is the soundtrack. The Lovin' Spoonful did the music, and it includes some songs - among them "Amy's Theme" - that I had heard but never knew whence they came.

I recommend the movie. It's a perceptive look at the youth culture, and also at mid-'60s New York. We even get shots of movie theaters running noted movies of the era! It's really a movie that you gotta love. I bet that when "The Godfather" debuted, people were shocked that it was directed by the same man who directed "You're a Big Boy Now".

And remember, wooden legs and aggressive chickens.

One of the few times when the late Elizabeth Hartman gets to play as somebody other than a frail, mousy girl. Since her Oscar Nominated performance in "A Patch of Blue," Hollywood always seemed to want her to play vulnerable, handicapped women, or vulnerable women of some sort. This time, she plays a bitchy, egotistical, man-hating actress/go-go dancer, who wins the heart of a young library clerk, played by Peter Kastner. The kind of character, who could probably be the inspiration for a riot grrrl band.

Besides that, I'm a Native New Yorker, so I've got a natural attraction for movies filmed in New York City, and the rest of the tri-state area. Biff Rules!

What we have here is an early F.F.C. effort (he also wrote most of the screenplay).You can see the genius that is later to come.

Here's a confused, virginal young man, constantly picked on by his over-bearing parents, trying to find his way in the world of New York City. Bernard is his name and just watch what he does with initials he spots.

The gal that wants him he doesn't want, and the gal that he wants doesn't want him. Got it straight? No wonder this is turning into a "cult" film.

The acting is first rate in a lot of places. Geraldine Page is always great and Rip Torn can handle most roles. Julie Harris was "perfect" as Mrs. Thing (honest, that's her name). Speaking of names, the part played by Lisa Hartman is Barbara Darling, a would-be actress who dances in a go-go club at night.

Watching Bernard weave his way through conniving co-workers and the strange behavior of Miz Darling, is worth the price of admission.

I always wonder who writes these critiques for IMDB, and should I trust them? For that reason,I'd like you all to know that I am a male senior citizen, but this movie made me feel 18 again. You'll find yourself running into similar things that happened to you in your youthful pursuits.

You could do a lot worse taking a chance on a movie.

A coming of age film centering on a young man's longings and fantasies for his dream girl whom he sees in the New York Public Library's main branch. This comedy-drama is so spotty it is often infuriating but still worth seeing. The lead, Peter Kastner, is forgettable, but his father played by Rip Torn, head of incunabula (see the movie and find out what it is!) at the library, is hilarious; the fight scene with Julie Harris is marvelous. The opening scenes show the behind the scenes goings on at the great library and even where all the books are stored, which the public can't see. Karen Black did a fine and affecting job as Kastner's girlfriend. On the negative side is the lovely Elizabeth Hartman coming off her big success in "A Patch of Blue" with Sidney Poitier. She is supposed to be the cool and detached object of longing - but is as vapid and empty as any character could be, and in part this has to be the fault of the direction of Coppola. This is a significant problem with the film. Hartman was very tragically an apparent suicide in 1987. The movie does have enough in it warrant a viewing.

This movie is flawed,frustrating and...fun. What energy! What a supporting cast! What a cool score from the Lovin' Spoonful(not just "songs by")! But,yes,it is bizarre,especially for a mainstream film. It's bizarre in the way that "Harold & Maude" is bizarre. And if you think that H&M works,give this a chance.

I just emailed TCM to think about doing a 1968 retrospective,as they are doing for 1939. I'm not saying that the films of 1968 were more important that 1939,but'68 is the pivotal (post WWII)year for America. Movies,films,even TV was changing and in some ways we're still trying to figure out what happened. "Big Boy" was the coming of age movie that never got its due while hundreds of thousands of Babyboomers were indeed coming of age.

At its most beneficial now as a fun time watching Francis Ford Coppola be a kid his first time in the sandbox on the ground floor of New Hollywood, this adolescent wet dream---in that it's a great time but not terribly memorable---is a young example of the modern story of a young man's anxious initiation into the big world as well as of the imminent counterculture awareness, not owing to a concentration on drugs or long hair but the insertion of the up-and-coming music, the hottest dance fads, and crisp social attitudes. As with The Graduate, there is the sensation of driving for something new other than the conformist, disappointing world of the socially safe adults. By now, though, we've hopefully become tired of the increasingly low common denominator movies about the induction of horny young men into the mores of sex. But first of all, this light, quirky sophomore directorial effort---following his requisite Roger Corman warm-up debut---was the pioneer of the bunch.

In late 1966, Coppola was a wunderkind green out of UCLA, and at the same time his second film is of the most base, commercial genre, it reflects Coppola's more scholarly influences, incorporating self-reflexive formal strategies originally conceived of in the European New Waves, and thus, well received by critics and the public alike. This, I think, is at the hub of most "new waves" in this country's cinema. Tarantino and Rodriguez made debuts twenty-five years later by taking on marketable genre plot exercises by fueling them an inimitable mix of influences from their encyclopedic knowledge of cinema. Their favorite genres were of the raw, gritty grind house era that was to take advantage of the breaking of ground and opening of doors Coppola and his peers were revving up to do when he came onto the scene with You're a Big Boy Now.

This and The Graduate, the more mature film that would follow, concern young men and older women. They both spring much entertainment from the nebbishy youth's blunders, before the luckless boys quickly finish botching up and triumph over this chump called virginity. Nichols served Buck Henry's sharp, sophisticated, understated screenplay by creating the most refined comic atmosphere with brilliant cinematography. Coppola, rather, simply enjoys himself as director, and his film is awash with recycled sight gags, lively performances and a spirited soundtrack by the Lovin' Spoonful. I can't decide whether he's a kid in the sandbox his first time behind the camera or a bull in a china shop, as filmmakers are when they are passionately in love with the films they grew up with, the filmmaking process and film, period.

The bungling young man this time is Peter Kastner. He's ambushed consecutively by a cartoonishly emasculating string a caricatured female types: a don't-wear-shoes-after-Labor-Day-style mother, a jazzy landlady and a chops-busting brunet. Doubted by his father and deeply wounded by one of the sexy trifecta, in due course he's on speaking terms solely with the family dog, named Dog. Yeah. It's hit or miss. Coppola is often too self-conscious about being charming. His hero is too blameless and starry-eyed. The plot is too random. Mike Nichols was able to illustrate in The Graduate exactly how many promises this broad premise makes, and was also able to do that with such masterful restraint and technique. But hey, before Mike Nichols' masterpiece, how was anyone to see that? Meanwhile, we're entrusted with the query of how perfectly decent, attractive fellows like Big Boy and Benjamin manage to reach their mid-20s in such far-along phases of inexperience. Maybe they drone bemusing little maxims to themselves and keep busy with work and studies until they're assailed by the Mrs. Robinsons of the world. I can see how that was the prevailing male fantasy in media back then, and why shows and movies have continued to have a shade of underdog in their young male romantic leads in the ensuing generations, from these guys to the John Cusack, John Hughes and spring break movies, to Jason Biggs' penetrating breakthrough role, to the Judd Apatow comedies of today.

You probably never heard of this film--there's a good reason why.

19 year old Barnard (Peter Kastner) is on his own in NYC and obsessed with girls. He's extremely attracted by a beautiful, but cruel, actress named Barbara Darling (Elizabeth Hartman) while sweet, nice Amy Bartlett (Karen Black--supposedly her film debut)likes him. Then there's his domineering parents (Rip Torn, Geraldine Page) and his holier than thou landlady named Miss Thing (Julie Harris!).

As you can tell this is not an ordinary coming of age tale. Great acting by everybody, but this film is very much a product of its time. It's very strange, very quirky and throws in psychedelic images, drugs, sex, horrible fashions and hairdos with fast inter cutting and voice overs--basically, a good example of 60s independent, extremely low-budget films. Looks nothing like a Coppola film.

I didn't really like it. With the exception of Amy, all the characters were annoying, the comedy was very cruel at times and the flashy camera-work really wore me down. A big bomb when it was released and how often do you hear Coppola gloating about this one?

Worth seeing just for the cast (Black is so young!) but don't except much. A must for 60s fans and Coppola completists.

I wrote the novel upon which this film was based, I worked on the various scripts with Francis, and I was present throughout the filming in New York. An amazing experience. Coppola had been working for a year with MGM writing scripts for them (he had got this job as a result of winning a nationwide literary competition) and had scripted Is Paris Burning? and Patton Lust For Glory, both of which Gore Vidal was supposed to be writing but Coppola travelled to Paris to help get scripts out of him. He had also written the screenplay of This Property Is Condemned, based on a Tennessee Williams short story, and (apart from the magnificent helicopter shot which starts the film) thought very little of it.

For full details of the filming of this first real Coppola movie see my memoirs Dropping Names which is available from my website www.davidbenedictus.com Oh and by the way clips of Dementia 13 which Coppola filmed in a couple of weeks in Ireland (he mentioned to me some nudie films which he may or may not have directed but Dementia 13 is probably his first acknowledged work) are used several times throughout You're A Big Boy Now (I imagine he didn't have to pay copyright on them!) and they look powerful to me.

A sad memory is that Elizabeth Hartman who plays the sexy man-hater with great precision and style was to have a serious nervous breakdown after the end of her marriage and threw herself out of a window to her death. She was some actress and you may have seen her in The group and A Patch Of Blue (opposite Sydney Poitier)

A 19 year-old "boy" working as a low-level assistant at the New York Public Library (Peter Kastner) is encouraged by his strict curator father (Rip Torn) to move out on his own and so gets an apartment with a nosey landlady (Julie Harris). There's a quality lass at work (Karen Black) who's interested in Bernard (Kastner), but he sets his eyes on a temperamental go-go dancer (Elizabeth Hartman).

"You're a Big Boy Now" (1966) is a quirky coming-of-age comedy/romance set in the Big Apple based on the 1963 novel of the same name, except that the setting was switched from London to Manhattan along with changing the kid's vocation.

It was Francis Ford Coppola's thesis project for UCLA, but this is far from a "student film" as it has the polish of professionalism. He had already directed a couple flicks for Roger Corman with this one including a couple snippets from his "Dementia 13" (1963). Coppola made $8000 on the gig with an $800,000 budget that spiraled into about $1 million.

While critics say the movie rips off Richard Lester's "The Knack ...and How to Get It" (1965), Francis said his script was written before that one came out, but he did admit to being influenced by Lester's "Hard Day's Night" (1964).

I couldn't help think of "Village of the Giants" (1965), just without the goofy giant-formula, although there's definitely some goofiness, like the amusing rooster on the fifth floor. "The Graduate" (1967) was obviously influenced by it, but I'd watch this over that iconic film any day. After viewing, I was reflecting on the art vs. Entertainment conundrum because Coppola made a flick with obvious artistic flair that didn't forget to be entertaining.

It's nice seeing Julie Harris when she was 40 during shooting. You might remember her from Columbo's "Any Old Port in a Storm" (1971).

Elizabeth was from the Youngstown/Boardman area of Ohio. You might remember her from Eastwood's "The Beguiled" (1973). She was shy in real-life and suffered from depression, which tragically ended with her ending her life by jumping from the fifth story of her apartment in Pittsburgh at the age of 43.

The movie runs 1 hour, 37 minutes, and was shot at various Manhattan locations, including the New York Public Library, Times Square and Central Park, as well as Chelsea Studios in New York City.

GRADE: B.

A pre Godfather film from Francis Ford Coppola, and one of his few comedies is an engaging film that exhibits an anarchic feel not unlike DiPalma's early films Greetings! and Hi! Mom! Talented Peter Kastner plays a nebulous young man who's moved away from home and now lives on his own in NYC. One of the highlights of the film is a surprisingly slinky Elizabeth Hartman as the sadistic Go-Go-dancer Kastenr gets entangled with; the film could use more of her. Vivid support is offered by Geraldine Page and Rip Torn are his parents, Julie Harris as his crazy landlady as well as a young Karen Black and Tony Bill. A scene from Coppola's B/W 1963 film Dementia 13 plays in the background at the multi-media club in the film. Too undisciplined for it's own good, You're a Big Boy Now is engaging and diverting and provides a look at New York City in the 60s. Page and Hartman co-starred again in Don Siegel's The Bequiled (71).

This is a perfectly entertaining little movie. If you're a Richard Lester fan, you probably enjoy this (although it's not as good as Lester's best). The best thing here is the cast. All of the actors are great and know exactly how to play what kind of roles their in. Another great thing is the soundtrack provided by Lovin' Spoonful. Fun songs that set the mood of the picture well. It is interesting the ways in which this film proceeds The Graduate in term of it's subject matter. However, at this point, Coppola simply did not command his craft as a writer or a director enough to give the story what it needed to become truly special, as Nichols would a year later.

hard to rate: pretty good for a film school thesis? how about an 11; cinema to study as a precursor to several great films? maybe a 5 or 6; as a movie, just a movie, maybe 3; two big problems: story is loose, too often sophomoric, too much filler dialog of no help, never defines the main character, sometimes nerd, sometimes rube, adventurous and off to a new life, a wimp who reports to daddy; worse problem, the actor who plays him, kastner: no screen presence, often unpleasant, beady expression in closeups where he's supposed to be interested, thinking; in drawn out tours of Manhattan, watching him watch NYC, no reason to care; when the locations overwhelm the star of the movie you sense more trouble to come; it does; but, amazingly to me, he was nominate for bafta 'Most Promising Newcomer to Leading Film Roles' in '68, then went on to do mainly minor parts in minor TV series; somehow, film student Coppola got appearances from Geraldine Paige and Julie Harris, both at home with the camera, and a john Sebastian soundtrack; newcomer in small role that leaps out is Karen black, a natural; so settle on a 5- for the history of cinema, and glimpses like break to sepia and stills in a flashback become some of the great scenes in godfather 2

The movie's mainly a matter of taste. There's no real narrative or exchanges of dialog, while the characters are more humorous caricatures than real people. Still, the cinematography is dazzling, probably too much so since FFC appears obsessed with the spiraling effects. These, however, do lend the film a free-spirited sense of freedom that young Bernard (Kastner) is confused by, having been kept on a tight parental leash. So, the theme, as much as there is one, is very much a 60's one— how to break free of stifling convention. In Bernard's case, it's more like simply understanding what it is that's stifling him.

The biggest mystery to me is how FFC assembled such an outstanding Broadway cast—Harris, Paige, Torn—for a Master's Thesis. And who's inspired touch is that "attack chicken" that bedevils the girls, or the Neanderthal cop who's never off duty. Anyway, if you're not insisting on a conventional style and are willing to put up with some pretty self-indulgent passages, the movie may have genuine appeal, especially for those either nostalgic or curious about the free-wheeling 60's.

Some freshmen actors walk around the streets of New York for about 90 minutes of guerilla film-making by Francis Ford Overrated.

I can see the influence Godard's Breathless here, with the jump cuts and the non sequitur dialogue and ''plot."

Ultimately, it's a marginally interesting travelogue with banal dialogue. I wanted more Rip Torn and Geraldine Page, less everyone else, esp Bernard's obnoxious library co-worker.

Basically, juvenilia from a famous director. The classic ''film school script" full of self-indulgent cr3pola.

I found this to be an excellent, fun 60's movie and think it represented the 60's very well. I saw it back then when I was a preteen and the extremely talented and tragic actress Elizabeth Hartman (who looks totally different, in this, than she did in Patch of Blue) plus the song "Darling Be Home Soon" ( a beautiful, and haunting song) by the Lovin Spoonful made it unforgettable! I would love to see it again as I have forgotten a lot of it but those 2 things made a lasting impression! I agree with a previous poster that it was great that Elizabeth Hartman was given a chance to play a part other than plain looking women and this was definitely the total opposite of some other roles she had.

The more I see this dull as canned green beans, hippy dippy coming of age pic the more the mystery deepens...how did its director, in the span of five years, go from utter mediocrity to making arguably the greatest American film ever? Answers are welcome.

When you see this movie in theater in '66 at age 18, you are probably going to be a YABBN cultist for life. I saw it originally because I was a Lovin' Spoonful fan (who wasn't in '66?) but was blown away by the whole thing and have seen it probably 6 or 7 times over the years. Thinking about it today in particular at the passing of the great Rip Torn, who is awesome in this along with his brilliant wife Geraldine Page. Probably will seem dated to most younger people now, but it is both a time capsule and an immortal vision of coming-of-age.

Despite being directed by Francis Ford Coppola, "You're a Big Boy Now" has pretty much been forgotten in the fifty years that have passed since it first played in theaters. After watching it, I think I have a grasp on a possible answer for why it's drifted into obscurity. I'm not saying it's a bad movie. The movie does capture the era quite well; those wanting to learn about styles and other period details will find the movie handy. Also, Coppola directs the movie with great energy throughout, from bizarre camera angles to offbeat performances.

But while the movie is directed with gusto, it doesn't manage to mask a big problem with the movie. The first half of the movie is really slow going with the story. Sure, the direction hides this thin story for a while, but eventually you realize that not much of substance is actually happening. Things do start moving after the halfway point or so, but it's kind of hard to get involved with what's happening because none of the characters are really all that sympathetic. Even the hero fails to arouse sympathy, because he is for the most part a real spineless wimp. The fact that all the performers give really broad performances doesn't help. In the end, the movie can only be recommended to people with real special interest in Hollywood filmmaking from this period, and even they might find it tough going at times.

I suppose every decade gets their "I'm just an average white boy who is really pining for the perfect-looking girl, but, this other girl who looks a little more off kilter, but still pretty, who's pining for me not too secretly, will be the one I'll end up with, after all" movie, and as it turns out if you happen to be one of the few humans on earth that watches Coppola's version of this the same week as you watch the John Hughes scripted Some Kind of Wonderful, it's quite remarkable how much better John Hughes did it than Coppola. I won't rehash my thoughts on that more, but I'll just say it helps a great deal when you make the characters in your story feel like... actual people and not just pieces to shuffle around as you go about aping Richard Lester and those big Italian 60s comedies.

What makes You're a Big Boy Now an early misfire for the Coppola, who would almost immediately jump meteorically into being a COPPOLA in capital letters (I haven't seen Finian's Rainbow, but the run from The Rain People to Apocalypse Now is tremendous), are two things: first, that the film is awkwardly cast when it comes to the leads. Peter Kastner didn't do a lot of work in film after this, some scattered roles in independent productions and TV, and there's just nothing all that remarkable about him. It's talked about a lot in film history how unique at the time it was for Mike Nichols to cast Dustin Hoffman in The Graduate, and I can't assume he knew what someone like Coppola had going on here (which was ultimately his Thesis film at UCLA, wow), but it's a useful comparison to see what happens when you cast someone as a fumbling, vanilla dope in the lead role.

I think what I mean to say is that you want to *root* for Bernard in his (mis)adventures, even when he stumbles and is a comic buffoon you want to like him, but there's nothing all that likable here, nothing endearing, which is what Nichols must have seen in Hoffman and what made that film work on a fundamental level. That's one problem for Coppola, but another is that (according to the trivia) he cast against type for his two female leads, with Karen Black as the warm-hearted Amy (the girl who went to school with Bernard and, for some reason that is left for us to decipher, has always liked him and now likes him more, ie "come up to my place Bernard" and such) and Elizabeth Hartman as the Go-Go dancing super-hip Barbara Darling.

Maybe he thought he'd try to work against the types, but he should've steered into them: Black would be much better suited (and probably find a lot more comedy to mine with Kastner) as Barbara, and Hartman would be fine as the "Good Girl" Amy. As it stands, we don't have enough time between Bernard and Amy to understand why she'd want him in the first place - not least of which that comment he makes when she's about to get on the bus "You used to be ugly... then" - and the obsession with Barbara Darling is one of those Movie contrivances where he's over the moon for her (Virgin as well), and she treats him like a garbage buffoon... which he is, but still. This is all to say the actresses try their best, but they're at the mercy of a director who is more interested in DIRECTING at this stage than in creating honest portrayals of people, even those in over their heads.

That leads to the second problem, which is that the movie is something I don't criticize too often, but is warranted here: it's Over-Directed. Or Over-Edited, or a combination of the two. Coppola is intoxicated with what he can do with the camera, how he can leap and bound and does his darndest to make visual comedy with the hyper-active mis en scene he's got going on, and only occasionally does it work (I did chuckle during the scene where Bernard's dad played juicily by Rip Torn gets stuck in a vault filled with sexy paintings with a woman who is not having it at all, and his camera and editing tricks work well there). But it feels often like he and his editor aren't all that disciplined to make something more clever out of what they're showing. In other words, I wouldn't mind the direction being so Running Jumping Sitting Standing Still et al, I only wish it wasn't there in such obnoxious dimensions.

This isn't an inherently bad premise for a film, there's some fun New York City street photography and a jaunty bit when Bernard tries to fetch a wayward kite, and a couple of the Lovin' Spoonful songs are fun. But this never coheres into anything that enjoyable and I wanted it to end before it did. Coppola would just a few years after the movie came out (and bombed, even on a million dollar budget) call it "really awful," so I don't think I can be harder on it than he was on himself. But it now stands more as a curiosity, of how you can see a director learning from mistakes - ie calming down, not miscasting, finding the truth in a scene - and that, again, other filmmakers would ultimately do this kind of material better in subsequent decades anyway.

One of my VERY favorite movies, but then again I grew up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in the 1960's and very much identified with the lead character, Bernard, when I saw the movie in 1966 at 13. Touching, funny, terrific Broadway cast and very well done especially considering the minuscule budget Coppola had to work with. I can imagine Mayor Lindsay's involvement, allowing Coppola to interrupt the Times Square "crawl" and to shoot in the NYC 42nd St. Library. Check out Coppola on "Inside the Actor's Studio" on Bravo talking about this film. He said he wanted to make a movie about the two best things in life; young love and hot pretzels!

One of the great weird movies of the 60's. Anybody who loves movies of the 60's, and has missed this, has a monstrous gap in their viewing pleasure. The views of NY from that time period bring back all kinds of memories to me. There are brief pictures of Steeplechase Park and Coney Island. The cast consists of so many interesting actors/actresses: the tragic Elizabeth Hartman, the well-named Rip Torn, Tony Bill, Karen Black, Julie Harris. The person who didn't like this movie, will I guess he/she is just not into this cult classic. This movie was on my very short list of movies-I-MUST-see, and I thank goodness for IFC for showing it.

I remember the day I bought the movie for $2 in Bennington, Vermont. I was in a bad mood that day. I read on the back of the VHS box how this was FFC's master's thesis at UCLA and thought that it could be a cool viewing. I watched it later that day and it changed my mood to great, and it became my favorite movie.

Some of the sequences and lines and maddeningly dizzy and dizzyingly mad. The names and objects and places Bernard gives to initials is wonderful. Barbara Darling dancing up in that cage in the underground club! The music (Darling Be Home Soon is a masterpiece)! The cinematography! The deliverance of sexy lines! (Hair?! You collect, hair!?"). Del Grado's poetic musings on life (funny where they got him ...). The views of 1966 New York City, pre-World Trade Center.

I've seen it about 50 times always trying to figure out the theme, and I still haven't come up with one, although, Bernard goes from a milk-spilling virgin to a maturing lad who finally opens his eyes to life and stops spilling milk.

That $2 VHS copy is gone. I wish I could find another copy, or, one on DVD.

It's the most dizzy, maddeningly wonderful sexy piece or cinema I've seen, or ever will experience.

So is there a way to find love with a woman like Amy Partlett with streaks of Barbara Darling that run through her veins? (And no, I don't collect hair, and stopped spilling milk years ago).