PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
6,4/10
5,8 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Basado en el escándalo Profumo de 1963, un romance entre una bailarina exótica y el ministro de guerra sacude al gobierno británico.Basado en el escándalo Profumo de 1963, un romance entre una bailarina exótica y el ministro de guerra sacude al gobierno británico.Basado en el escándalo Profumo de 1963, un romance entre una bailarina exótica y el ministro de guerra sacude al gobierno británico.
- Dirección
- Guión
- Reparto principal
- Premios
- 1 premio y 2 nominaciones en total
Joanne Whalley
- Christine Keeler
- (as Joanne Whalley-Kilmer)
Jeroen Krabbé
- Eugene Ivanov
- (as Jeroen Krabbe)
Reseñas destacadas
I didn't expect much out of this when I was saw it about 15 years ago, but it turned to be quite interesting. The only problem was it has too much a sleazy feel to it and an obvious political agenda, which is not unusual in films. The agenda is almost always one way.
There is a lot of nudity in here, lots of it mainly with Bridget Fonda who plays "Mandy Rice-Davies" and Joanne Whalley-Kilmer as "Christine Keeler." Whalley-Kilmer looked particularly beautiful.
John Hurt as "Stephen Ward" and Ian McKellen "John Profumo" are the males. The story is about Britain's "Profumo Affar," as it was labeled back then - a sex scandal involving English politicians in the early 1960s.
In what could be a dry account turns out to be a fascinating movie, well-acted and beautifully-photographed. I've seen it three times and the third was probably the last. By then, the titillation of the nudity had worn off and the bias of yet another Liberal agenda bashing conservatives (it's same all over in the world of film-making) got a bit annoying. That, and the fact that had no English subtitles on the DVD, was disappointing.
There is a lot of nudity in here, lots of it mainly with Bridget Fonda who plays "Mandy Rice-Davies" and Joanne Whalley-Kilmer as "Christine Keeler." Whalley-Kilmer looked particularly beautiful.
John Hurt as "Stephen Ward" and Ian McKellen "John Profumo" are the males. The story is about Britain's "Profumo Affar," as it was labeled back then - a sex scandal involving English politicians in the early 1960s.
In what could be a dry account turns out to be a fascinating movie, well-acted and beautifully-photographed. I've seen it three times and the third was probably the last. By then, the titillation of the nudity had worn off and the bias of yet another Liberal agenda bashing conservatives (it's same all over in the world of film-making) got a bit annoying. That, and the fact that had no English subtitles on the DVD, was disappointing.
I saw this for the first time last night on Channel 4. I've never sought out the film before because I assumed that it would be an uninvolved telling of an uninteresting piece of British history. I was wrong.
The piece works on several levels, as they say. First, the period evocation is excellent. I became interested in this era after reading an interesting book on slum landlord Peter Rachmann a few years back (he is a minor character here). Christine Keeler was a figure who inhabited both the pot and ska parties of London's impoverished immigrant community and the bedrooms of the most powerful men in the land, and this breadth and contrast gives the film sufficient scope to successfully capture the energy and feel of the time.
Second, the handling of character development is exemplary. The film surprises you by gradually shading in the relationship between Keeler and Stephen Ward, until their completely believable 'love affair' becomes the focus in the moving finale. Joanne Whalley and John Hurt are both exceptional as Keeler and Ward, turning in subtle and detailed performances. These characters are contradictory and ambiguous, the kind of complex human beings who could quite easily be reduced to type by lesser actors.
Third, the film is made with real heart and intelligence. It is sympathetic to its characters and it strives to understand them, and thus help us to understand them. The director, Michael Caton-Jones frames and cuts with brilliant understatement, making potent and witty use of contemporary music throughout. I really didn't expect the seamless technique and low-key accretion of detail employed here, and it kept me fascinated.
The tone of the picture is just right. A kind of compassionate sadness. We come to feel the real injustice of the moral and social hypocrisy bought to bear without being assaulted by it, and as noted before, the ending is powerful and affecting. It would appear that tabloid scumbags were as pernicious an influence then as they are now, and the observations thereon are as relevant as ever.
If I had to find fault with the film, it would be this: Ian McKellen models perhaps the least convincing bald pate in the history of cinema as John Profumo. So much so, that, for me, it impacts negatively on his otherwise notable performance. Its a minor flaw all told.
I was surprised. I was impressed. I was moved. If you happen upon the film, sit down and watch it. You will be rewarded.
The piece works on several levels, as they say. First, the period evocation is excellent. I became interested in this era after reading an interesting book on slum landlord Peter Rachmann a few years back (he is a minor character here). Christine Keeler was a figure who inhabited both the pot and ska parties of London's impoverished immigrant community and the bedrooms of the most powerful men in the land, and this breadth and contrast gives the film sufficient scope to successfully capture the energy and feel of the time.
Second, the handling of character development is exemplary. The film surprises you by gradually shading in the relationship between Keeler and Stephen Ward, until their completely believable 'love affair' becomes the focus in the moving finale. Joanne Whalley and John Hurt are both exceptional as Keeler and Ward, turning in subtle and detailed performances. These characters are contradictory and ambiguous, the kind of complex human beings who could quite easily be reduced to type by lesser actors.
Third, the film is made with real heart and intelligence. It is sympathetic to its characters and it strives to understand them, and thus help us to understand them. The director, Michael Caton-Jones frames and cuts with brilliant understatement, making potent and witty use of contemporary music throughout. I really didn't expect the seamless technique and low-key accretion of detail employed here, and it kept me fascinated.
The tone of the picture is just right. A kind of compassionate sadness. We come to feel the real injustice of the moral and social hypocrisy bought to bear without being assaulted by it, and as noted before, the ending is powerful and affecting. It would appear that tabloid scumbags were as pernicious an influence then as they are now, and the observations thereon are as relevant as ever.
If I had to find fault with the film, it would be this: Ian McKellen models perhaps the least convincing bald pate in the history of cinema as John Profumo. So much so, that, for me, it impacts negatively on his otherwise notable performance. Its a minor flaw all told.
I was surprised. I was impressed. I was moved. If you happen upon the film, sit down and watch it. You will be rewarded.
The British have always enjoyed this kind of masochistic self-scrutiny, and what better wound to scratch than the notorious Profumo affair? The sex and treason scandal toppled England's conservative government in the early 1960s, and cost the life of at least one man: London doctor and celebrated freethinker Steven Ward, who enjoyed the heady, highbrow thrill of life in high places and understood how the quickest way into the corridors of power was through the pants of the men at the top. John Hurt manages to pull a sympathetic character out of the doctor's unsavory reputation, and freshman director Michael Caton-Jones recreates (with pitch-perfect sleaze) the boozy, lascivious mood of early '60s sex and politics. The details would have been compelling even without so much trendy visual overkill, but a little stylistic embellishment is to be expected in a film condensed to feature length from a proposed five-hour television miniseries. And although the script by Michael Thomas says nothing about power and privilege that isn't already common knowledge, it's nice to be reminded of the all-too human animal lurking just behind the typically English stiff upper lip.
I've read the book that the movie is based on (a collection of reports on the 1963 affair that shook the UK politics). I must say that the movie is very accurate in its portrayal of the times and facts of the case.
That of course would not have made it the film to watch. So it has a lot of nudity to spice things up (man, the sixties were a decadent time!), good acting, and brilliant soundtrack of theme songs just recreates the times for you. John Hurt as the ambitious 'doctor' is excellent, as is Bridget Fonda. Joanne Whalley-Kilmer, who played the protagonist, Christine Keeler, is quite forgettable though.
I highly recommend this movie, but beware it's a STRONG "R" film.
That of course would not have made it the film to watch. So it has a lot of nudity to spice things up (man, the sixties were a decadent time!), good acting, and brilliant soundtrack of theme songs just recreates the times for you. John Hurt as the ambitious 'doctor' is excellent, as is Bridget Fonda. Joanne Whalley-Kilmer, who played the protagonist, Christine Keeler, is quite forgettable though.
I highly recommend this movie, but beware it's a STRONG "R" film.
What seemed shocking in the 50's is almost commonplace in the debauched 21st Century, so to get a proper perspective on how controversial this was, one would probably have to have been alive during the period. In the absence of possessing a time machine though, one can only guess the outrage at the revelation that British MPs had secret sex parties and slept with prostitutes. WOW! If there is a similarity between now and then though, it's seems to be the determination of the tabloid press to publish as many lurid headlines as possible, regardless of how many lives they ruin. Vultures, the lot of 'em.
For such a saucy role, it's surprising that Joanne Whalley-Kilmer doesn't show much skin... Apart from the most obvious use of a body double ever. Never mind, her co-stars more than make up for it on that score, including a rather young Bridget Fonda, fumbling with an English accent. John Hurt and Ian Mckellen complete an impressive cast, who tackle their roles with gusto and make it an engaging ensemble piece.
I enjoyed it as an exposé of the morals and hypocrisies of a Britain on the verge of the Swinging Sixties, but was never truly engrossed. Nowadays, in a world where a woman can build a business empire based on one sex tape, you just know that everyone involved in this tawdry affair would be big reality TV stars. A sign of the times indeed. Sigh... 6/10
For such a saucy role, it's surprising that Joanne Whalley-Kilmer doesn't show much skin... Apart from the most obvious use of a body double ever. Never mind, her co-stars more than make up for it on that score, including a rather young Bridget Fonda, fumbling with an English accent. John Hurt and Ian Mckellen complete an impressive cast, who tackle their roles with gusto and make it an engaging ensemble piece.
I enjoyed it as an exposé of the morals and hypocrisies of a Britain on the verge of the Swinging Sixties, but was never truly engrossed. Nowadays, in a world where a woman can build a business empire based on one sex tape, you just know that everyone involved in this tawdry affair would be big reality TV stars. A sign of the times indeed. Sigh... 6/10
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesThis movie narrowly escaped an X rating in the U.S. because of some questionable footage during the Cliveden House orgy scene. Closer scrutiny revealed that two extras were having real sex on a piano in one of the background scenes. Even though the images were blurry, the scene had to be trimmed for all general releases to avoid the restrictive rating, which BBFC censor James Ferman accomplished by defusing the light from a table-lamp in the foreground. The inquisitive-minded will find this sequence about 49 minutes and five seconds into the movie.
- PifiasA title card says, "One Year Later, 1962," indicating that Profumo addressed Parliament about Keeler that year. Profumo addressed Parliament in March 1963.
- Citas
Stephen Ward: All Russians are spies, it's how they're brought up.
- Versiones alternativasOriginal 114-minutes British version was shortened to 108 minutes for the USA theatrical release in order to avoid a X rating.
- ConexionesFeatured in Wogan: Wogan with Sue Lawley (1989)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Scandal?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 7.000.000 US$ (estimación)
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 8.800.000 US$
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- 658.660 US$
- 30 abr 1989
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 8.800.000 US$
- Duración
- 1h 55min(115 min)
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta