Thanks for the memories!

Please don't spend money on this.

good back-story, and good acting

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Young people stammering and fumbling their way through the rites of passage in this extremely mild adaptation of Robert H. Rimmer's novel. New enrollees at Harrad College, run by a sexually uninhibited couple who encourage their students to be intimate, approach the male-female roommate law differently. Nervous Bruno Kirby (billed as B. Kirby, Jr.) is amusing when coupled with a forward blonde (his voice goes up whenever he talks to her), while virginal Laurie Walters shares space with unassuming stud Don Johnson. The curriculum is rather obscure (only two classes on the first day, beginning with Nude Yoga!). The prurient-minded may find the semester's results disappointing; the film has unblushing nude scenes, but the agenda is to enlighten, to broaden horizons, which means the film is more pedagogic than titillating. Richard Kline should be demoted for his overly-bright, overly-bland cinematography. As the adults, James Whitmore and Tippi Hedren keep a straight face, but good intentions can only take the film so far. Followed by "Harrad Summer" the next year. ** from ****

Utterly silly story - based on a novel, amazingly - about a hippie-era coed commune/college where the students have nude classes, etc. This could easily have been a comedy i.e. satire/parody of the hippie era - that's how ludicrous and awful it is.To say that time hasn't been kind to this laughable little oddity would be putting it very mildly; what was once regarded as a revolutionary new way of thinking about life and the universe comes off today as rather pathetic, extremely naive - and just downright idiotic. Hence it's no wonder that the dialog sounds unbelievably corny, phony, naive, and very often crosses over into B-movie territory. The beginning of the movie shows a girl hugging a tree: this pretty much sets the intellectual tone for the rest of the proceedings.The movie's pluses are the unintentional humour (obviously), the 70s charm, and some nudity. The nudity unfortunately isn't on the usual 70s high level; namely, the women are mostly flat-chested.The most inane moments: the lesson in properly doing the "zoom", Tippi Hedren trying to make a point to Don Johnson by suggesting sex in the field, the cowardly and unsatisfactory answer by Hedren and her husband when confronted with a question about their own hypocrisy of a monogamous marriage, Johnson getting punched in the nose, Kirby's initial encounter with his roommate and the ensuing dialog, Kirby being set up by Johnson suggesting a roommate switch - and the list goes on and on.If this piece of crap is funny NOW, I can't imagine how it will look in a couple of decades.

My friends and I read the HARRAD EXPERIMENT by Robert Rimmer as nervous teenagers in the early 70s. The book was a manifesto for sexual awareness and responsibility, a call for a rational development of sexual activity on a cultural basis. Of course at the time, we were just looking for the hot parts....Anyway, the movie makers were given the thankless task of transforming the book and apparently cound not decide whether to make it a polemic or a soap opera. Worse, the plot they chose betrays the format of the book, where the narrative was shared equally buy two men and two women. The film concentrates on Johnson's character, maligning him and transforming the film into his character's unwilling education in sexual responsibility.Bruno Kirby doing full frontal nudity? Brrrrr..........

Have to agree with a previous reviewer. Some outfit called Platinum Disc has put out a videotape of this movie that is not the theatrical version, but was instead apparently taped off a TV broadcast: low quality, no nude scenes, bleeped language. And the worse part is, way dated. This version gets a "2". Even with the missing 6 minutes restored, probably no higher than 3-4.