Not Only But Always

This biopic assumes the audience knows the story already, so it doesn't elaborate on certain aspects of the story. If you did not know that, later in his life, Peter Cook was pretending to be Sven, a man who lives in a lighthouse, and was calling a late night radio show, you would not understand the scene early in the movie. Certain things in Peter Cook's life aren't mentioned at all, like his brief success in American television with the show "The Two of Us." Nevertheless, as biopics go, this is one of the best. Great acting! Rhys Ifans captures Peter Cooks mannerisms and that unique look he had in his eyes. Aidan McArdle captures Moore's voice, but he is not doing an impression. He is great in the role. The movie does not, to me, explain any of Cook's motives. If you did not know anything of his life and just saw this, you would think he was just an arrogant twit, in love with himself, who enjoyed nothing more than putting down Dudley. Still I would recommend renting the DVD and watching it twice. The second time you watch it, watch it with the commentary on.

OK so i haven't seen this yet but i really want to because of the only reason i can think of. i was the hot dog guy on the side of the street! i was an extra on this movie an my parts were filmed in Auckland City New Zealand. it was a great experience for me and above all of that i actually got 2 meet this fine talented actor, Rhys Ifans! He is great in all that he does. High respect held by me for this great individual, i was also in other scenes of this film. Working on this film and meeting Rhys in the flesh has made my acting passion stronger than ever and i know one day (hopefully soon) some one will see my true acting talent! Rhys, thank you so much. u may not remember me but i'll never forget what you have given me and what you did for me that day on set. Where can i find my copy??

Johno Hartigan

Looking extraordinarily like Withnail at his most dissolute, Rhys Ifans gives a pretty good shot at Peter Cook. And the others do their own impressions of the fab four - Miller, Bennett, Moore & Cook - convincingly as well. Miller is very much hand and arm movements, Bennett is a genuine look-alike and the Dudley Moore is remarkable.

Two queries: Why didn't they give him blue contact lenses when one of Cook's most striking features was his very beautiful blue eyes.

Secondly, why didn't they mention the film he made after Bedazzled? It wasn't a popular success which may have contributed to his sense of malaise as Dudley rose to the top.

And a possible goof: Wendy claims she wasn't invited to the funeral (seen off by the fierce wife #3). But there she is in the church. Just a bit of dramatic telescoping or insufficient research?

This superbly acted and directed 'biopic' was riveting viewing for any Peter Cook/Dudley Moore fans. Rhys Ifans was particularly convincing as Peter Cook.

The emphasis is (however) firmly on Peter Cook, even though it is primarily about Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's relationship. The lack of focus on Dudley Moore, is my only serious criticism of the piece. You only really experience Dudley through Peter Cook, yet the film is set up to imply that it is balanced between the both of them.

I have know idea how true it is, but like all the best biopics, it is utterly convincing and compelling viewing. Arguably Peter Cook invented 'alternative comedy' and this film supports this view, and all his personality flaws as well as his genius.

I would liked to know better how Dudley and Peter met, and how Dudley entered the 'business', this is very glossed over; in fact the film doesn't really go into Dudley's equally long list of flaws, which would have been fun, instead the film gives us a strange mixture of 'noble Dudley' mixed with extremely 'shallow Dudley'. However, (as a Peter Cook fan) I was still very satisfied with the result.

This film contains extreme language used in quite nasty ways, in quite large quantities. I have no problem with this, but if you do, you won't like it!

If you're middle-aged like me, Pete and Dud were always there, from the new dawn of 1963 when Cook almost single-handedly turned Supermac into Silly Old Mac, and we felt meritocratic Britain had arrived, to the cynical exploitative desperation of Derek and Clive 1976, after Python had run its course, and alternative vision looked just as wonky as all the other optical aberrations.

In between, Stars were real talents that burnt brightly and radiated electromagnetic energy. Miller was Renaissance man, Bennett the new literato, Cook debunker-in-chief and Frost the entrepreneur of a new Britain in a way that oddly pre-parodies New Labour as if Cook had written the ending. And Dud was Pete's mate.

As for America, who knows why Beyond the Fringe worked there: we learn nothing from this piece.

In fact we learn nothing much to form the setting I describe, which I think is what makes this film eery and sad, a portrait of a fading person rather than his timeless talent. Like all such men, Cook's contribution to the canon of British culture is more than the sordid banality of his flawed life, except in the realisation that such works have always demanded the time and pressure at the typewriter that breaks all but the most powerful personal bonds. Or that to be this much of a funny djinn maybe you do have to be vapid on the inside. Above all, I think the production should have followed Cook's own monochrome observation and started at the end. Sad lives that end chronologically in bathos, as most do, do not mean sad work. Vapid? Yes, Dud, I am a man who reads his reviews with the Thesaurus beside me. But I only fleetingly reveal my lack of relationship with my parents even to you.

I can't decide whether it's a flaw of the film. Surely you have to have been there to feel what it means? And surely that doesn't include the magnificent Ifans and McArdle, which makes our surrogate comics' contribution all the more stunning: they hadn't left the nursery long before Bo Derek gave Dud back the ego Pete had wrung from him. But I do wonder if "...but Always" in itself makes Cook accessible to a new generation, and perhaps that's a shame: it would have been easy enough to sew in two or three complete sketches so that we can gauge for ourselves how it works, after all the *writing* at least stands timeless, even if the performances and the man are gone.

As it is, we just had repeated, diminishing echos of MacMillan and the one-legged man, echos that mean something only to those who were there for big bang. Whilst this can make good art it also loses most of the potential audience and is therefore by definition elitist.

Speaking of elitist, Peter Cook was clearly as haughty and arrogant as any, but the Cook portrayed here is a snob of the worst kind to boot, and sneers at Moore and Bennett for being mere Grammar School boys, or is any ammunition acceptable? Well, lack of legs is, so perhaps none of it is as alternative as we might imagine. The Private Eye of Ingrams, Rushton and buddies, into which Cook fitted so deliciously, was only too willing to admit that, satirists or not, the new generation Establishment was merely reinventing itself, irreverent but irrevolute, and irrelevant if wildly entertaining.

Overall, this one could just run. Just because it tantalises, presents an image for the curious, leaves unanswered questions about the man's work for a new generation, portrays a dazzling spectacle of a person nearly in view, perhaps it will invite new interest in his writing and performance. Or perhaps there's nothing there but the ghost of a time long gone, by a savage critic also gone.