Three in the Attic (1968) User Reviews

What "The Graduate" hath wrought

[jgepperson · 5/10 · 25 October 2005]

I was fascinated by the concept of this movie when it came out. I remember the poster and the trailer. But I didn't get to see it then because I was too young. (Somehow I did see "Barbarella" and "In Cold Blood." My parents must have been slipping.) Finally I have seen "Three In The Attic" and my expectations were no longer high. It was somewhat enjoyable and probably wouldn't have gotten made if "The Graduate" hadn't been a hit. (The finale even somewhat mirrors the earlier film.) Its ideas about gender conflicts, race, class, sex and death are interesting, but it's ultimately an exploitation movie with a Hollywood ending, cheaply made by American International who made a lot of fun trash.

The film (which stars Christopher Jones - in a nude scene showing his backside - square-jawed John Beck, Judy Pace, and top-billed Yvette Mimieux) takes place on a Vermont college campus and there are also brief shots of hippy-dippy 1960s Provincetown. There's not much to see in terms of Vermont scenery.

Too dumb to be offensive

[mls4182 · 4/10 · 29 November 2021]

So much for the sexual revolution. This movie insults women, races and even gays. It doesn't mean to, it just comes naturally.

I found this on YouTube because I am a Yvette Mimeux fan but kept watching because of Christopher Jones' fabulous and beaudacious buuttocks. All four stars are for that.

Not a hippy film, but not straight either

[Chrid-909 · 4/10 · 7 March 2015]

This film has a few nice sixties moments, principally the scenes in the early part of the movie where the main guy, Paxton, and the main girl, Tobey, are enjoying their relationship and seem to be in love. There are a couple of brief authentic street scene shots at a resort (I don't know where, on the East Coast presumably) that are like small windows back in time and a cool shot of the couple swinging (literally) on a hanging ring on the beach.

About halfway into the movie the main guy starts to have regular fun with a couple of other girls. The first girl, when she finds out, gets upset and cooks up a plan with the other two to lock him in the attic and take turns in using him for sex.

This of course would be a fantasy come true for many adolescent boys, and our guy does indeed react a bit like the cat that got the cream in the beginning. But after a while he starts to get dissipated and shabby and exhausted.

'Why doesn't he just leave?' we ask ourselves. And indeed the Dean of the girl's school asks Tobey just that. 'We have sapped all his energy,' says the girl.

This is an odd little film, although the feel and look of it and the corny pop soundtrack make it similar to a number of low-budget productions from this period, from both sides of the pond. 'Here we go Round the Mulberry Bush', an English effort, also from 1968 and also with a sort of 'permissive society' theme (music by Traffic) springs to mind.

It's a bit puzzling that these girls, at this time of 'sexual liberation', should so readily wish to 'punish' someone for giving them a good time... I suppose the fuzziness of the script and the contradictory currents within the narrative are reflections of the writer's state of mind and of the state of the society.

It is also interesting to observe that the poster for the film, which can be seen above, does NOT show that one of the three girls is black. The studio and the distributors must have baulked at the idea of showing, not only 'promiscuity' but 'inter-racial' at that! By the way, the black girl is far and away the sexiest and coolest of the three girls! Yvette Mimieux is pretty but she always gives an insipid impression in her movie roles, and the hippy girl is nothing special IMHO.

I must admit that I did not really listen to all the dialogue as I had the sound fairly low and was noodling on guitar so I can not give a true and whole picture of this movie. But I can say that it is interesting from a historical/cultural perspective and is worth one viewing at least.

Christopher Jones is just great in this Sixties sex drama.

[Infofreak · 8 May 2003]

James Dean lookalike Christopher Jones ('Wild In The Streets') plays college boy stud Paxton Quigley who finds his life is turned around when he meets the beautiful and intelligent Tobey Clinton ('The Time Machine's Yvette Mimeux). Paxton is so smitten with her he gives monogamy a try for the first time, and everything looks fantastic. But he finds himself irresistibly drawn to vivacious newcomer Eulice (Judy Pace) and begins an affair with her. Soon after he does the same with hippie chick Jan (Maggie Thrett), and juggles all three girls, egged on by his best buddy Jake (John Beck). However, Tobey discovers the truth and convinces the other two girls to help her imprison Paxton in the attic of their dorm. The three girls then proceed to punish him by screwing him to death! 'Three In The Attic' was probably quite risque when it was released in the late 1960s, and while it was most likely just intended as a "naughty" exploitation movie, it actually holds up very well as an interesting drama about men, women and sex. Christopher Jones is just great throughout, and watching it you can't help but be a bit saddened thinking how this talented and charismatic actor's career came to a standstill after he appeared in 'Ryan's Daughter' only two years after 'Three In The Attic'. This is a very interesting and entertaining movie if you can manage to see it.

There's a big heart under the swag of the playboy.

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 11 August 2022]

There have been worse retrobates than college student Christopher Jones who is dating three women at the same time, charming them to the point where they all fall almost obsessively in love with him, culminating in an act of revenge towards him near the end of the film that is the advertised plot but is more of an afterthought.

Yvette Mimieux, Judy Pace and Maggie Thrett are as different as night and day, dominating his love life and keeping him busy until the 3:00 meet up and realize what they have in common locking him in the attic. He does have feelings for all three, but seemingly is hopelessly in love with Mimieux. Pace is a feisty black student who is a teaching assistant, while Thrett is a hippy who barely seems awake. Jones uses a lie about his sexuality to get her in the sack.

I'm not too crazy about the revenge plot even though it is not handled in the way I assumed it would be. It doesn't occur until just under the hour mark and is dealt with as more of a montage. The problem is none of these women would obviously share him, even as a part of revenge to exhaust him like a bull. Veteran character actress Nan Martin steals every minute she's on as the girl's college dean, and Reva Rose (Lucy from the original "You're a Good Man Charlie Brown") is funny as a nerdy co-ed who rats on the girls. It takes to have become a 60's cult classic and it tries too hard to go there. A mixed bag that could have been a bit more risky and never goes as far as it could have to be a real shocker and ground breaking anti-establishment film.

Not quite the exploitation film I expected it to be.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 14 June 2016]

American International was a hot studio in the 1960s and it was NOT because it was producing quality films! Beach movies, LSD and hippie movies were quite popular with the small studio and they were very successful. Shot with rather small budgets, their films kept raking in the bucks during this era because their content appealed to younger, hipper viewers. Artistic masterpieces? Hardly....but they did have their own odd sort of appeal.

In many ways, "Three in the Attic" is exactly the sort of movie I expected from American International. It is jam-packed with sexual innuendo and is the sort of film that would have been banned only a decade earlier. But, despite this, it's not exactly a typical exploitation or trashy film. The acting and script are a bit of a surprise as they really did NOT suck!

This film is about Paxton Quigley (Christopher Jones) and why he was given this odd name is beyond me. When the film begins, you learn that he's being held prisoner in an attic and then the film jumps back so you can learn how and why he's in this situation. It seems that he and a young lady were in love....but Paxton couldn't resist temptation. When two other women practically throw themselves at him, he gives in to the sexual revolution and juggles all three women...having a LOT of sex and good times. However, eventually the three discover his dalliances and decide to teach him a less...to practically screw him to death in this attic prison!

Despite the salaciousness of the plot and the steamy story, the film actually has some interesting things to say about this sexual revolution. I am not saying it's exactly a deep film...but it is weird and worth seeing...especially when you look at it as an interesting snapshot of an unusual time. As for the ending, it really didn't make much sense...but it still was quite interesting!

Never Got This Movie Off My Mind

[basketnthings · 9/10 · 14 February 2005]

I was about 15 years old when I saw this movie, in 1969, I think. I never saw it again but I never got it off my mind even until today. Why? because It was very funny and it was just a hilarious story and well thought out.

It tells a story where this guy has a number of girlfriends, they all found out he was cheating and decided to teach him a lesson that he couldn't refuse. Lots of laughter and hurting sides and you would keep wanting more and more.

It would still do well even today and would fit right in with today's society. I would love to see it again. It really was ahead of it's time.

A pure piece of the 60's

[wizardfkap · 2 May 2000]

It is a shame that older small movies (low budget, small box office, "B" movies) rarely climb out of the "attic" and back into availability as VHS or DVD selections.

This was a classic "teen flick" cheaply produced to maximize profit, but it was a bit of a surprise hit. It even produced a sequel.

The music by Chad Stuart show his startling creativity and promise of a career that never materialized.

I only wish it were readily available.

Mature look at the sexual revolution, with some exploitation thrown in.

[noncentz · 8/10 · 30 July 2006]

SOME POSSIBLE SPOILERS...

I just attended a fabulous double bill at the American Cinematheque in Los Angeles, featuring Wild in the Streets (one of my all-time favorite guilty pleasures) and Three in the Attic. Actor Larry Bishop was there to discuss both films and to talk about Christopher Jones, who he hinted was actually in the theater somewhere watching the films.

I haven't seen Attic since the mid-80's and have kept an eye out for it ever since, to no avail. I had often wondered why, with Streets cult status and Christopher Jones a Tarantino icon, this film hadn't been released on DVD.

Oddly, I had remembered it as something much more exploitative, owing probably to the plot line that stood out - 3 women lock a guy in an attic and almost pleasure him to death. What surprised me most about the film was the maturity and quality of the dialogue. Whereas many of AIP's films of the period stressed exploitation over multidimensional character depth and dialogue, Attic was actually handled with a surprising degree of investigation into the aftermath of the sexual revolution.

I also found the romance between Jones and ethereal beauty Yvette Mimeux to be entirely believable and sweet, and ultimately emotionally painful for the characters. Scenes that take place in Provinceown, when they first live together, rival similar scenes in Love Story and carry the naturalness of the escaped lobster scene in Annie Hall. There was actually time spent getting to know the couple.

Yvette says "couples are supposed to fight. How come we never fight." So he throws a dish on the floor, then hands one to her to do the same. Very cute.

Surprises abound. Yvette's father's reaction upon discovering that his daughter is living in sin is classic. He understands Jones' side of things. The female dean of the college smoking a pipe - and understanding Yvette's side of things. Jones has trouble bedding the hippie chick so he tells her he is gay - but he turns to the camera so we can see the expression of hope and fabrication on his face.

No, the film is not perfect but it's certainly well acted, well written and well shot - and it's no more dated than The Graduate or Easy Rider. The New England locations are utilized well and Attic has one of the best end title sequences I've ever seen. I won't give it away in case you are ever surprised by this film, but it's hilarious and completely original. Eulice was a bit of a stereotype but she was a strong woman which made her appealing.

And of course there's Christopher Jones. For my money, one of the greatest losses in cinema was his departure from the screen. As I watched the naturalness of his performance, and his Johnny Depp/James Dean good looks, I spent much of the film seeing him in other roles of the 70's. He could have easily pulled off Cuckoo's Nest or Deerhunter or Serpico.

Bishop told us that he was about to begin directing a Quentin Tarantino produced biker film and that he hoped to bring Christopher Jones back to the big screen, as he did when directing Mad Dog Time. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

The American Cinematheque traditionally finds the best copies of a film available for their screenings and in some cases, the only surviving prints. The film they screened was in pristine condition until the last two or three reels, when much of the color had faded so that everything had a pink tone. Perhaps this is why a DVD release of the film hasn't happened yet. Such a shame if this film is lost to time.

If you ever get a chance to see Three in the Attic, check it out. Very enjoyable

Ahead of it's time satire

[rufasff · 5 July 2003]

It would seem to be a real shame most of those involved, from writer

Stephen Yada to Christopher Jones, never really got to do much else.

Because this uneven, smart, well acted satire is way ahead of it's time;

and still surprises. The title gimmick, which was used to advertise the movie, is really one

of the weaker sections of the film, which looks at the battle of the

sexes in a way that really does mirror it's time, while treating it's

characters with humor and affection. If you can get a copy, it's well

worth going out of your way to see. Only the mediocre pop score does not

hold up well.

Love in the loft!

[ShadeGrenade · 9/10 · 30 June 2010]

Like a lot of '60's movies, 'Three In The Attic' used to play late at night on British television, but has not been seen anywhere in years. I do not think it has ever been screened by Sky, nor is available to buy on D.V.D. ( not legitimately, anyway! ). Based on the novel 'Paxton Quigley's Had The Course' ( adapted for the big screen by author Stephen H.Yafa ), it is a witty comedy about the battle of the sexes. As its main character observes at the start: "The sexual revolution was happening, and I was one of its first casualties!". Christopher Jones plays 'Paxton Quigley' ( a name to conjure with! ), a good-looking student whom girls adore. Three to be exact; blonde Tobey Clinton ( Yvette Mimieux ), black Eulice ( Judy Pace ), and Jewish hippie Jan ( Maggie Thrett ). Paxton ( known to his friends as 'Quig'. Had he lived in Britain, he'd probably be known as 'Paxo'! ) meets and seduces them in succession, before bragging about the experiences to friend Jake ( John Beck ). His methods differ each time; for instance, he impresses Tobey with his knowledge of philosophy, and beds Jan after telling her he is gay!

But the girls find out he is two-timing them and devise a most unusual form of punishment. Luring him to an attic in their dormitory, they trap him there, and try to kill him with sex! Feeding him on steak and wheat germ, they punish him for all the wrongs inflicted on Womanhood down the years. Can Paxton take it?

Despite the main premise, this is hardly 'Emmanuelle Meets The Stud' stuff. The only nudity on view is a quick shot of Jones' bare bottom as he poses for one of Eulice's paintings. The attic romps are pretty mild on the whole. Anyone wanting a cheap thrill is going to be disappointed. It makes a number of salient points about adult relationships, and boasts fine performances from the cast, in particular Jones, who has an unmistakable James Dean-like swagger ( why he did not go on to become a star is baffling ). The girls are good too; Maggie Thrett gets the movie's best line: "Is it possible to be Jewish and psychedelic at the same time?". Nan Butler gives a funny performance as the pipe-smoking Dean of the girls' college.

You occasionally wonder why Paxton does not simply yell for help ( perhaps he's enjoying himself too much ), and how he copes with little things such as toilet needs. The ending is different to that of the book, and seems to have been inspired by 'The Graduate' with Paxton rushing to Tobey's side before she leaves the college. Over the end credits, an animated middle-aged couple discuss what they've just seen.

The film proved popular enough to justify a sequel - 'Three In The Cellar' a.k.a. 'Up In The Cellar' ( 1970 ). I have not seen it ( it starred Larry Hagman and Joan Collins ) but there is a good chance it could be better than 'Attic' - it was written and directed by Theodore J.Flicker, who also made the brilliant 'The President's Analyst' ( 1968 ).

Home Sweet Home

[sawells · 9/10 · 27 July 2019]

I had to give this a high rating. I ran the 16mm theater while stationed at Cape Romanzof Alaska. We were in the bottom of a volcano on the Bering Sea. My previous duty assignment was at North Truro AFS on Cape Cod. The scenes showing Provincetown, MA. made me feel so great! Not quite like being home again, but it sure was nice to see.

Jewish AND Psychedelic?

[ferbs54 · 8/10 · 26 April 2017]

Just watched a true rarity that I'd been wanting to see for some time: "Three in the Attic," from 1968. In this one, Christopher Jones, star of that same year's "Wild in the Streets," stars as Paxton Quigley, the self-styled "first casualty of the Sexual Revolution"; a good-looking lothario at a Vermont college, whose claim to fame is that he has bedded no less than 50 women before his sophomore year. He soon becomes very involved with three more: a beautiful blonde WASPy type (Yvette Mimieux); a pretty, black soul sister (Judy Pace); and a Jewish hippie (Maggie Thrett, who most viewers will remember best as Ruth from the classic "Star Trek" episode "Mudd's Women"). Trouble arises when the three gals realize that Paxton has been sleeping with all of them, and in revenge, bring the young stud up to the titular attic, hold him prisoner, and drain all his manly energies from him by feeding him nothing but meat and having nonstop sex with him. Ultimately, poor Quigley is on the point of death from being so depleted, in this pretty funny sex comedy. The film has loads of clever dialogue, is well directed by Richard Wilson, offers up many catchy tunes (by Chad and Jeremy), and in all is a lot better than I had been expecting; not as good as but on a par with "The Graduate," "Goodbye, Columbus" and other films of the era dealing with sexual liberation. My favorite line in the film comes from that hippie chick: "Do you think it's possible for a woman to be both Jewish and psychedelic at the same time?" Love it!

Three girls who discover their boyfriend is the same guy, get revenge by locking him in an attic, and taking turns visiting him!

[jojochan · 9/10 · 12 August 2005]

This is one of the great movies of all time.... on par with = The Graduate = .... It had a major influence on teenage girls who saw it in the '60's.

We constantly joked about the guys we had locked up in our own attics! Of course, it was the other way around... Each girl had 7 or 8 guys locked in her attic, and the fact that a couple of us actually had bedrooms in the attic made the joke even funnier.

I don't know why I have not seen this film since it came out in 1968, but I really wish someone would bring it back.

Even to this day, my friends and I joke about our attics, in the same way that we joked about the Ford that was mentioned in The Graduate (of course, that reference didn't last quite as long as the "attic".)

A confused mix of thriller and comedy goes nowhere.

[fedor8 · 6 January 2007]

A college-campus Casanova (Jones, who looks a bit like James Dean) keeps three girlfriends at the same time, and when they find out about each other they lock him up in an attic, where they take "revenge" on him by alternately having sex with him - thereby draining him of his energy, will-power, or something like that...

The movie itself doesn't "know" what its goal is, so I can't even try to guess what the point is. That three hot-blooded college bimbos don't have a plan or a clear motive (apart from a vague notion of revenge) one can perhaps put down to female logic, i.e. The lack of it. (Sorry for that, any female readers; I may be a chauvinist, but at least I'm honest about it.) What makes things stupid is that Jones's motives are totally unknown - to both the writer and the viewer. The fatal flaw of the premise is that Jones wasn't so much kidnapped and locked away in the attic, as that he voluntarily stayed there during his time of "captivity". In other words, he could have left any time; he was neither tied, threatened, blackmailed, nor physically abused - apart from the sex, which was supposed to be the punishment. How cute.

It all sounds like a comedy, but the ridiculous truth is that this film actually takes its premise seriously and tries to make some kind of a statement, or even message, dare I say. The first hour is supposed to be light comedy; it must have been very light, for I can't remember a single truly funny moment. That first hour sort of breezed by, and in spite of a lack of humour it had a sort of semi-cheerful late 60s feel to it. So basically it seemed brainless, but harmless enough - or so I thought.

But then came the "capture". Suddenly Jones is in the attic, and in the narration he tells us at that point that he was definitely "not going to give up". Give up on what?! The poor viewer sits there like an idiot, waiting for this whole attic nonsense to start making sense, but as the end draws near it becomes clear to the most brain-damaged viewer that there will be no explanation as to what Jones was trying to prove by staying in the basement; not even a clue as to why he was going on a hunger strike, trying to be a martyr, and just generally being as illogical as his curvaceous, female "captors".

At the end he staggers, half-dead, out of the girls' dorm (where he was "kept" for a couple of weeks) and then gets beaten(!!!) by some girls who see him passing by. And after he has recuperated in the hospital he chases down his true love from the trio of girls - Mimieux - and tells her "we have the worst behind us" and can now continue their romance, or some nonsense like that. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Were the makers of this silly 60s crap actually trying to be clever? God knows what those semi-literate Hollywood bozos had in their tiny little heads when they made this... (Well, apart from trying to make money.)

On the surface this would seem like a "9 to 5" sort of female-revenge-on-the-male-a**hole plot, but stupidly and strangely enough this isn't the case at all. The reasons it isn't are plain simple: 1) Jones is not portrayed as an a**hole; he even tells his best buddy that he loves Mimieux, and generally seems to be a likable character, and 2) the three girls are anything but decent, innocent, little flowers of youth. First Jones meets the dim-witted, blonde, virginal, Bible-hugging psycho-bitch (Mimieux) who says that she hates all men. He eventually and actually falls for this nut-case and vice versa.

Then he meets the black girl (who apparently slept with many, many men) who seduces him - not the other way around - and she does so in spite of the fact that he suggested to her that he can't (screw her) because he has a date. I.e. She is a bitch: i.e. Not exactly a pristine, virginal ray of sunshine. Then Jones meets the airhead, mysticism-oriented, brunette hippie girl who jumps into bed with him the first night - i.e. She wasn't born yesterday, and, like the black slut, came on to Jones more than was the case vice versa. (Supposedly she sleeps with him only because she believes him that he is gay and needs curing; a faint comedic touch.) In other words, there is only one girl here who really had a reason for revenge: the blonde psycho, Mimieux. The other two were just whores looking for fun. I don't even understand why he was hiding the other two girls from the black girl; this is illogical because she, of all three, really shouldn't care less.

But to look for logic in this screwed up mess of a movie is like looking for a needle in a hay-stack, with the difference that the hay-stack is covered with manure, so that it isn't even tempting to look for the needle. The film would have worked if: 1) the guy were an a**hole, 2) all three girls were virginal and pure (or thereabouts), 3) Jones, after having hooked up with Mimieux, came on to the other two and not the other way around (practically), 4) the humour had been emphasized and better written, 5) all notions of making a message were dropped, 6) he were tied up in the attic and not free to leave, and 7) the movie made up its damn mind if it wanted to be a psycho-thriller or a cheerful comedy.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

[sawells · 9/10 · 27 July 2019]

The title of Three in the Attic flashes by in a scene from Once Upon ...