The Love-Ins (1967) User Reviews

Career nadir for its star

[Marco_Trevisiol · 3/10 · 24 July 2020]

Richard Todd was a notable acting figure in the British film industry for roughly 15 years. He was Oscar-nominated for his first major role and then had a starring role in an Alfred Hitchcock film. From then on he was a reliable acting presence in array of action and war films giving convincing performances.

But his acting persona and style had fallen out of favour by the mid-1960s as kitchen-sink dramas and 'Swinging London' type films became popular. The drying up of roles perhaps disorientated him as that's the only way one can explain his appearance in the American film 'The Love-Ins'.

The film is a cheap and tedious take on the counter-culture sweeping America at the time. What is surprising is for an exploitation picture, apart from an 'Alice In Wonderland' LSD sequence, it's not even entertaining as camp.

But the film's most dispiriting aspect is Todd's performance. In the central role of playing a supposedly Timothy Leary-like figure that captures the hearts and minds of San Francisco youth, Todd is totally unconvincing and displays none of the charisma or personality such a role required. His inability to even attempt to adjust his usual acting style just underlines how miscast he is.

In a career with many quality films and performances, this is a sad career low.

As my daughter watched this with me, she exclaimed "Wow...the 60's REALLY sucked!".

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 3 February 2021]

During the late 1960s, Hollywood tried to cash in on the hippie drug craze going on in much of the United States. And, in most cases, they produced films with dubious messages and often starring down-and-out stars who were essentially slumming it for a paycheck (such as Lana Turner and Jennifer Jones).

When the story begins, a group of students are being expelled from a university for producing an underground newspaper. One of the professors, the 'cool' Dr. Jonathan Barnett (Richard Todd) quits in sympathy over the overreaction of the school and soon he finds himself a minor celebrity...adored by the hippies. After appearing on "The Joe Pyne Show" (sort of like "The Morton Downey Jr Show"), he moves to San Francisco and he moves in to a flat occupied by 147 people and some of his old students.

At first, he's more an observer of the Haight-Ashbury scene, but soon (too soon really) he's a cult leader...wearing white robes and with students sitting at his feet and waiting for him to dispense knowledge...which is mostly about liberation and LSD use. To say he has delusions of godhood is pretty much on point. After one of these old student (Susan Oliver) has a bad Acid trip, the other student (James MacArthur) becomes very suddenly jaded and realizes that Barnett and the drugs are awful. This change, like the change in Barnett, is way too fast to be realistic. So what's next for these folks? Tune in and see....or not.

There are quite a few problems with this film, even if it is an interesting window into a certain subculture of the late 60s (led by Professor Timothy Leary). First, many of Barnett's teen and early 20s disciples are quite old and very square (such as Mark Goddard (31), James MacArthur (30) and Susan Oliver (35))....and becausse of this, they are ridiculous and come off as phonies. Second, the music in the film is pretty awful....or at least much of it. Several times, it seems as if a dozen folks with no musical abilities just started performing their own personal song! Third, and most importantly, the film is chock full of one-dimensional characters. There is no middle ground between the ultra-squares and the hippies most of the film. And, folks go from loving Barnett to hating him almost instantly!

What I did appreciate about the film was how it unknowingly actually predicted the dark side of this 'Summer of Love'.....showing the dark side of the hippie movement. However, it also wasn't exactly subtle nor realistic....and seemed to say that hippies were bad...which is a gross over-generalization.

Overall, the film is interesting from a cultural sense but also imbalanced and phony as well. Please don't, like my daughter, assume all the late 60s was like THIS! Some of this is quite realistic....and much of it isn't.

High school and college students older than the cast of "Grease".

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 13 July 2022]

Completely goofy in the same way producer Sam Katzman made his earlier teen rock musicals, this is hysterically funny drive-in B movie dreck that is so much fun to laugh at. Instead of dealing with music, the establishment is griping about the use of LSD as mentioned in a teen underground newspaper whose publication results in the expulsion of several students (James MacArthur, Susan Oliver and Mark Goddard, all in their thirties at the time), and the presence of professor Richard Todd who tries to promote the medical benefits of the drug.

The opening scene shows a tour bus going down the Height Ashbury section of San Francisco, showing more hippies and druggies than seen in "Central Park" in the movie version of "Hair". After the real protest begin, Todd is seeing in a white robe sitting on a throne, overlooking everything as a psychedelic love-in begins, with more flower power and lava lamp style photography than practically every anti-establishment late 60's movie ever made. And don't forget the big white rabbit! That leads into one of the most far out musical variations of "Alice in Wonderland" that I've ever seen.

A female reporter identifies Oliver and Goddard as students, indicating that there are supposedly of high school age, and it's when Oliver begins tripping that the weirdness of the film really goes into overdrive. A rather overdone flashback to such lifestyles of the Timothy Leary cult, but certainly very funny nearly 60 years later, with the overly done psychedelic photography getting lots of giggles. If they ever do a "Summer of Love" retrospective at museums where the art of film is celebrated, this should lead the way.

The UNauthorized Timothy Leary story

[gortx · 9 July 2000]

An obvious cash-in on Timothy Leary and his "turn on, drop out" LSD preachings of the 60's. Of course, this being corporate Hollywood, they turn the Timothy Leary character (well played by Richard Todd) into a money hungry CULT leader "who must be stopped!" Amusing for today's self-appointed "hip" audiences by its dated hippie iconography and the fact that the evil head hippie is played the TV series LOST IN SPACE's Goddard!

It's a backlot orgy of love, peace, and heterosexuality...

[moonspinner55 · 1/10 · 5 January 2008]

After university professor Richard Todd "drops out" in protest of the expulsion of two clean-cut students who print an underground newspaper (The Tomorrow's Times!), he takes a jaunt to San Francisco to check out the action and finds nothing but bubble-blowing, hip-shaking, body-groping kids frolicking in the park (nothing too outrageous: the dancing blonde has flesh-colored undies beneath her dress, and all the couples are boy-girl). Quickie product filmed on the Columbia lot brings up 'relevant' themes (such as religious cults), but has so little to say on these topics that everything ends up cheapened by the exploitation. It is so poorly-made and naïve (and, ultimately, conservative) that it nearly runs the risk of being endearing. Too bad nobody came up with a competent script to help the picture over that 30-minute hurdle. How much LSD does one have to take to get through relics like this? * from ****

Drop In, Turn On, Tune Out

[wes-connors · 1/10 · 12 July 2008]

Hip professor Richard Todd (as Jonathan Barnett) resigns from his university, protesting the expulsion of implausible hippies James MacArthur (as Larry Osborne) and Susan Oliver (as Patricia Cross). Mr. MacArthur and Ms. Oliver publish an "underground" newspaper. Mr. Todd believes defending the publication of their "Tomorrow's Times" is a freedom of speech issue; but, his college administration terms it a "pornographic rag". After advocating LSD use on Joe Pyne's TV show, Todd is evicted from his apartment. Jobless and homeless, Todd moves into MacArthur and Oliver's San Francisco pad. There, he becomes a Timothy Leary-type hero. Mark Goddard (as Elliott) plays a dealer who can take you really far out.

Counterculture garbage from producer Sam Katzman and director Arthur Dreifuss.

Bad trip, man.

Bummer.

* The Love-Ins (1967) Arthur Dreifuss ~ Richard Todd, James MacArthur, Susan Oliver

Dragnet meets Timothy Leary

[davesjourneys · 6/10 · 5 January 2008]

If Jack Webb were to write/direct an "expose" of Timothy Leary and the LSD/Hippie movement, what would it look like? The 1967 film 'The Love Ins' doesn't share any of the same credited writers or directors with the 1950s and 60s TV series Dragnet.

Still, the one dimensional, stereotypical characters: hypocritical, "square" parents clashing with reckless, self-absorbed young adults, intolerant jocks, a greedy promoter and a cult leader with a messiah complex combined with the "it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt" plot line (and subplots), will have you flashing back to the classic TV series.

That said, this film does have some historic, and even artistic, value as it retells the age old tale of an idealistic movement falling prey to pride and corruption.

A Pro or Anti-Hippie Movie? You Decide!

[Scott_Mercer · 8/10 · 17 September 2007]

*** Psychedelic Pspoilers, Man! ***

I saw this film earlier tonight at the American Cinematheque in Hollywood, in a newly-struck 35 mm print, no less! Yay! This gives me a hunch that they are preparing this film for DVD release. I hope that's right. Of course, that means that there were no problems with the film technically: perfect picture and sound.

Aesthetically, well... Let's just say that this film makes that square Hollywood fraud "Psych-Out" look like a documentary! Don't get me wrong, I love both "Psych-Out" and this film for their entertainment value, but, authentic slices of the Sixties they are not (though Psych-Out is a lot closer, as I said).

First of all, 98% of this film is shot on a Hollywood back lot or sound stage, with about 2% of stock footage from San Francisco thrown in. The film is supposed to take place in San Francisco. (For comparison's sake, "Psych-Out" has about 15-20% shot in San Francisco.) This film is a follow-up (not a sequel) to "Riot on Sunset Strip," with the same director, producer and production company. I'm surprised Columbia Pictures released it though, as opposed to American International.

A loose and cynical retelling of the story of Dr. Timothy Leary, both sides (the Hippies and the Squares) come in for a drubbing in a script that must have seemed somewhat edgy and "with-it" for a film from 1967.

Professor Barnett stands up for some university students who are publishing an underground newspaper in their free time. The students are expelled from the university, and Barnett resigns in solidarity. He goes on the TV show of fascist dipstick Joe Pyne (as himself!) and gets a round yelling at for Barnett's support of LSD use for everyone (and free love).

He goes to live with the two students in their Haight-Ashbury hippie crash pad amongst about six other Hipsters. One of the dudes there seems to be a trustafarian and has the money to manipulate Barrett into becoming a Hippie Messiah, solely to make a ton of money with "Love-Ins" "Happenings" and finally stadium shows.

At first, Barrett seems to support his own principals, but soon starts taking himself too seriously and believing his own hype. He becomes enamored of his silly robes that he wears while speechifying and his "image." He even unironically refers to his followers as "the cult." Paging Jim Jones...

Meanwhile after a bad acid trip, where hippie chick Pat thinks she's Alice in Wonderland, Larry (James MacArthur, who you all know as "Dan-O" from Hawaii Five-O) gets disillusioned and crusades against the "phony" Barrett in the underground paper. The Hippies won't hear of it. Pat defends Barnett so Larry takes a powder and dumps Pat, who becomes Barnett's "personal assistant." Meanwhile, Barnett turns into a complete tool and starts bedding Pat. When she tells him she's pregnant, he orders her to "get rid of it." Shocking! When Larry hears that Pat is "flipping out," he runs to her aid, and prevents her from overdosing on LSD (if that's even possible). She runs away from Larry's grasp, and falls down the stairs, losing her baby in the process (Hollywood melodrama supreme in action, folks). Larry overhears that "the baby won't make it." Pat hadn't told him anything about it.

Meanwhile, Larry (perhaps thinking the baby was his)takes his revenge and goes to Barnett's big appearance at the stadium, after buying a gun in 15 seconds (nice background check there, 1967!), and sneaks into the stadium packing heat (nice security, police department!). Just at the climax of Barnett's speech, he fires the handgun and kills Barnett, without anyone around him noticing him firing, apparently. Then, Larry immediately turns himself in to the police. The End.

Quite an unsettling ending, considering what happened the very next year after this film was made to Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.

So, does this film show that the Hippie movement consisted of a bunch of dumb naive kids who were led astray and corrupted by some cynical leaders who used their trusting ways just to grab money and power? Or, does the film show that Hippie movement only met its Waterloo by specifically ABANDONING its principles and being led astray by the same corrupting influences that made the Establishment worthy of dumping out and staring over again, namely: money, power, greed, image and hypocrisy? Two differing interpretations. As I said, the film has criticisms aplenty for both Barnett and his followers, and the Establishment, represented by Joe Payne, the Chancellor of the university, a bunch of jocks playing football, and the father of one of the Hippies.

If you can find a copy, give this film a shot and decide for yourself. You can forego the serious discussion of its thematic elements, since it is ultimately a silly exploitation movie, but there is a lot of colorful psychedelic stuff to look at, The Chocolate Watchband appears for about 5 seconds, and overall there's plenty here for 1960's fans to feast their eyes on.