Absolutely Beautiful Woman
-
is_dis_d_way2amarrillo — 17 years ago(April 12, 2008 04:24 AM)
well she did get bled profusely, elevated 6 foot off the ground & spun around at high speed which could be orgasmy classed as good a 'rogering' as any.
"what do you think of him?"
"i think he's a beep peasant!"
see you at the movies baby -
dynamohat — 17 years ago(January 16, 2009 05:51 AM)
Yes agree. I had seen her in Villain (1971), but just seen her in an old tv sitcom called 'Dear MotherLove Albert', from 1970, with Rodney Bewes, Its absolute garbage, but Fiona Lewis looks gorgeous in it. Apparently she was
in Playboy around 1975.
"You're gonna need a bigger boat" -
chongajuly — 15 years ago(December 01, 2010 10:22 PM)
Fiona Lewis couldn't understand how her friend Jacqueline Bisset seemed to get more breaks than she did, they certainly were physically blessed with similar attributes. The one film where Fiona appeared topless was 1976's DRUM, the hilarious sequel to the previous year's MANDINGO. She shows off a magnificent chest, as does Pam Grier, who comments about them to Warren Oates- "she got BIG titties!" "is that a fact? well I can't tell a beep thing with all that clothin' she's wearin'!" STRANGE BEHAVIOR was perhaps her greatest horror role, and she's certainly done more than Bisset.
"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond -
Gluck-3 — 14 years ago(April 23, 2011 03:09 PM)
That was a nice juicy post by Chongajuly above, in nice contrast to the one-line opinions that make you pause and wonder about the trouble it took to click on them. The subject got me to think, why Jacqueline Bisset (who is such a doll) and not Fiona, when it came to getting more parts? Naturally, beauty is not the only determinant, as there are myriad beautiful actresses who never get anywhere. As for whether Jacqueline is a far more talented actor, that is not the case either; both actresses can hold their own well enough.
So what it boils down to might be that Jacqueline, with her rounder face and slightly greater set-apart eyes evokes greater innocence; not to the point where she has total "Victim" written over her, naturally, as she has had a broad range of parts. (Although offhand, I don't recall if she has ever sunk her teeth into a villainous role.) Fiona, on the other hand, offers a greater sense of sensuality, exoticism, and even danger. Not that she has not competently handled victim roles my memory is unclear, but I believe she was somewhat "innocent" with her roles in DR. PHIBES RISES AGAIN and THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS, as well as the DRACULA TV-movie where she played Lucy but where she excelled was when she played a bit of the bad girl. When she made her presence felt in the back-to-back "STRANGE" movies (INVADERS and BEHAVIOR), the viewer could not help but sit up and take notice. (Wow! What a woman. There is something a little DIFFERENT about her.)
Bec238ause she appeared out of the ordinary, it may have been difficult to cast her in somewhat generic girlfriend or wife roles.
As for Chongajuly's parting shot about Fiona's having done more than Jacqueline, if he was referring to the quantity of roles, he got it backwards. (Fiona has been preserved in only 36 movie and television roles, whereas Jacqueline is topping 85.) Jacqueline, of course, reached genuine movie star status, having appeared in many "A" films during her heyday, a fate that escaped Fiona, which undoubtedly must have been frustr5b4ating for her. -
chongajuly — 14 years ago(April 23, 2011 07:56 PM)
I was referring to Fiona's lengthy credits in the horror genre, opposite such actors as Vincent Price, Robert Quarry, Peter Cushing, and Kirk Douglas. Jackie's lone credit was THE MEPHISTO WALTZ (the only other films I've seen her in are CASINO ROYALE and THE DEEP). The genre has allowed many lesser known performers a longer shelf life than actors doing straight pictures.
"I take pleasure in great beauty" - James Bond -