उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

I could feel Stephen Fry in the leading role, that's how good Roger Allam is. He also carried the movie through the slow beginning. The story is intriguing, fun, sad, and happy, all at the same time. It's a shame I hadn't heard of it until I happened upon it while browsing the free section of Amazon Prime. Well worth a watch, as long as one is not very religious or uptight.

A clapped out poet brings his powers of perception to an English country house acclaimed for its miraculous cures, and finds more than he bargained for ...

Lovely doff of the cap to English detective fiction, although it finds much humour in declining to avert its gaze from the nonsense of the convention. The theme of miracle cures is important, so the one scene of emotion toward the end matters a lot - I didn't feel it, maybe because the moment of death was never addressed thematically. Hey - it's a country estate, built on the deaths of others.

The pace and humour are good, and the hero is perfectly smashed and detached. The weakness is in the supporting characters - not the performances, but their drama and the necessity of their presence. No great turns or lines, and I guess that's down to the original writing.

Music and sets are gorgeous, editing keeps it clipping along.

Overall: Insightful and entertaining, not so dramatic.

Interesting case study of the old 'adapting-a-novel to-film' quandary. As usual, the first impression you get is that they've fallen between two stools - taken a subtly crafted and nuanced story and brainstormed how to make it a hit with the daytime-movie-of-the-week crowd. In respect of that ambition, it belly-flops as they almost always do. The not immediately likeable anti-hero's voice-overs rescue it to a large extant, and the unexpected and slightly mind-boggling revelation of the real mechanics behind the supposed miracles also shifts gears and jolts you into a certain reappraisal of what has gone before. It definitely references two films I've seen - "Rueben, Rueben" (1983), for the amusing, lecherous, literary drunk, and "Equus" (1977), for reasons you'd better watch both films to learn. Enjoy it as a curio. Films of unfilmable books are at least interesting celluloid oxymorons. How else could it have been done? One option would have been as a faithful, dutiful transcript of the novel - like the 1981 TV production of 'Brideshead Revisited' - but I don't think budget would have covered that. Maybe - if I were a 'suit' and in charge - scrap all the POV soliloquys - just strip it to the plot and build an Agatha Christie "Poirot' style detective story around that. The actual bones of the plot are strong enough to survive this sort of re-fleshing. But then, I'm not responsible to a boss for ginormous amounts of money spent. Let's not judge. It's definitely a movie that will make you think. Not just a slab of pre-processed Hollywood audience-feed, anyway.

Not trying to bash Stephen here. Love the guy. Amazing writer. I'm 16 and I recently watched this with my parents and 13 year old brother. 15 rated films are normally at the right level of inappropriate yet comfortable for us all to watch and enjoy together. However, although this film was very funny, the narration was thoroughly entertaining and even the story was clever and engaging, it was just slightly disturbing. My parents checked the parent notes before watching and I have to say, they really didn't prepare us for the endeavour to come. Nevertheless we laughed along and just discussed that parts were not to be spoken about outside our front room. I would say DO NOT WATCH THIS WITH KIDS UNDER 15 OR 16. Also it uses the c word like 3 times just an fyi.

This is a beautifully well made, extraordinary well acted movie. I would argue it's quite a high brow watch, but then you should be expecting that.

There isn't exactly a plot of sorts, other than someone is hired to solve a series of mysteries, other than that it just seems to be a series of random occurrences.

The visuals are really nice, great location work, and an incredible setting.

The characters are larger than life let's say, the best element for me was the acting of the ever wonderful Roger Allam.

It feels very disjointed in parts, but overall it's definitely worth your time, the dialogue is wonderful at times.

Worth seeing, 7/10.

Don't expect a hilarious comedy or so because it isn't but there are some funny moments, especially by the spoken words. You can clearly hear Stephen Fry speaking through Ted Wallace, a waterfall of words, sometimes harsh and sometimes funny. Ted Wallace did a good job playing his character, a lost soul that drinks way too much, investigating what could be a miracle curer. The rest of the cast all contributed in their way to the story. A story that might not be for everybody, like the reviews and ratings clearly shows, but if now and then you like the complexity of the English language instead of the usual stuff you might enjoy this movie. It's worth watching once in my opinion.

I was worried I might be disappointed by this movie because of the negative reviews, but that worry was ill-founded. I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish and thought it well-found the balance between absurdity, pathos and grit.

I could hear the literary voice of Stephen Fry throughout, especially in the outpourings of the protagonist. The words sizzled and danced and revealed a certain realistic sensitivity.

I am not associated in any way with anyone involved in the film.

This trifle fails to convince. The story is contrived and the deus ex machina is not appealing. Throw in a bit of raunchy teen-cream excitement to attract voyeurs, and there you go. The performances are good, although each character is stock. If you're on a plane this is worth seeing but don't pay for it.

Despite the promising premise and cast, I found the "The Hippopotamus" to be very disappointing. Much of the 'humour' came from Roger Allam's foul-mouthed muttering and yelling. A little bit goes a long way and (IMO) incessant profanity in a comedy is usually sign of a lacklustre script (like third-rate stand-up - if you're not funny, yell 'F---' a lot and hope for cheap laughs). The story, which finds Allam's obnoxious washed-up poet "investigating" claims of miraculous cures at a country estate starts off promisingly but then degenerates into a series of embarrassing sex-sight-gags. Given that this was based on a book by the talented Stephan Fry and included some fine British comic actors (e.g. Tim McInnerny was great in the Blackadder series), "The Hippopotamus" was a real let-down.

This is a thoroughly enjoyable film. Surfing Netflix for something decent to watch when I chanced upon The Hippopotomus, having not heard of it. What a nice surprise! Delightfully funny and tender, without being soppy. The narrative was pure Frye wit...brilliant...smart and so funny. So nice to not be bored by stupid slapstick, but laugh out loud at the fab script. I just loved this film.

What a demonstration of Fry's weaknesses as a writer: the quasi-Evelyn Waugh story; the undergraduate reflections on life and love; the vulgarity to shock and seek a laugh. The terrible news is that this is not funny at all, not even wrily in and English with a gin and tonic bone-dry drollness funny: in fact, it's witless and boring.

But it's worse than that: it is a lousy pastiche of a third rate 1930s novel written by some forgotten hack who went to a minor public school and then never published another book. Hence the cheap and common jibes about writing and publishing, mostly true too, but nonetheless dull as the proverbial ditch water to hear served up again.

The film adds a voice over to give the audience the musings and assorted drunken drivel from the author protagonist, who is a crumpled forgettable middle-aged man of no discernible attributes.

The plot tests the audiences' patience and good humor with its series of jokes about emissions deliberately designed to upset sensitive aunties. It wastes the talents of all involved and must be considered an elaborate tax avoidance scheme conceived in order to lose money.

A drunk, washed-up poet is hired to solve a family mystery.

The main character is a highly literate pompous old fellow struggling with his own existence. A lot of the comedy comes from him insulting people using very long words, which I found very amusing.

There is not a lot to this movie. Don't expect dramatic plot twists, edge of the seat action, moving performances or fire works of any kind. But this film achieves what it sets out to do perfectly!

This film is gentle, interesting, funny and quite refreshing.

This is definitely a Sunday afternoon watch, but for that time slot it is perfect! Production, acting, script are all exceptional!

This film hasn't tried to reach too far and it pays off dividends.

Watch this after your Sunday roast with a drink for a perfect afternoon.

Seeing as Stephen Fry with his gentility and wit is my favourite atheist (though he does have his moments), I had high hopes for this movie.

What a disappointment. It proved to be a typical example of a type of English film full of unlikable stock-standard characters (the grumpy old curmudgeon, the ditsy blonde, the brash, rude American, the goofy, horny adolescent, the ineffectual older brother, and of course the requisite gay man). Combine that with a lustreless script sprinkled with the usual assortment of unpleasant details (I'll spare you the spoilers) and almost devoid of laughs, and you've got a waste of two hours.

I gave it a generous 2 because the acting was good.

Somebody must like movies like this because they keep making them, but if that's not your cup of tea spare yourself the anguish.

A lovely film, very good story which you would expect from a movie based on a Stephen Fry novel. Roger Allam is brilliant as always and the supporting cast a joy. The film may not to be to everyone's taste and some of the scenes are not for people who may be easily offended. Make yourself a cup of tea, get some nibbles and settle down to watch a well written and well acted fim.

The pompous arrogance and traits of Stephen Fry come blaring through at you this entire movie. The verbose lavatorial narrative was actually quite wearying and excessive to the point that it became irritating. The attempted 'humour' was dull and boring, I don't believe I was brought to laughter once. Fry's own slanted view of women and sex is brash to say the least, along with weak characters and dialogue, dare I go on..

Honestly, I was expecting to sit down and watch an entertaining British comedy however was sorely unimpressed.

This a strange one. Adapted from a Stephen Fry novel this film is a hard one to pigeon hole. It starts off as a comedy with some Malcolm Tucker ( The thick of it ) like scenes played brilliantly by Roger Allam it then turns into a stately home farce and ends up being like a detective mystery story. Its the story of a drunken poet and theatre critic who loses his job and then agrees to investigate goings on at Swafford Manor where so called miracles are being performed. I enjoyed the performances in this especially from Roger Allam but the film itself left me a little cold probably because I couldn't really relate to the people in it plus it was a little too high brow for my liking. As soon a poetry is mentioned , which it is several times , I tend to glaze over and lose interest. If you are into the old Agatha Christie movies I can see how this might appeal but it wasn't for me.

If you dislike or don't understand British humour, you'll rate this a 1. But if you accept the fact that the Brits are all a bit mad --- I mean,who else could have dreamt up Monty Python? --- you will enjoy it immensely: the totally absurd story, the British prototypes, the brilliantly rich and round use of the English language. Having said that, there was excessive and unnecessary use of the"'f word" If you don't understand British humour, there is no way to explain it.But if you do, you'll love this film and consider it a masterpiece of the genre. l

Stephen Fry's musings might be amusing to him but to others who want to be entertained, we're left wanting.

An Agatha Christie attempted story, a poet being the investigator, who's musings are vulgar and core with slapstick and other clumsy attempt at comedy.

He's clearly reaching to be Oscar Wilde and failing miserably - watch it, you'll see what I mean I need to add more words to make 600, so therefore the positives: Roger Allum is good as always and wasted here - he deserves better roles, production is good, pleasing locations of English stately homes and the actors are the usual, which you'll recognise. The End.

Something different and really enjoyable. Black comedy, with a great cast. Great viewing for a winters evening.

Was expecting so much better from R.Allam. His talent totally wasted on this putrefying portrayal of garbage. There is simply no rational need to offer "entertainment" of this caliber. If there is any motivation to try to influence an audience to accept nausea-inducing torridness along with cynicism about spiritual gifts it's failed miserably. Fry is allowing himself to be used by forces he doesn't understand.

I read the reviews but have so far only watched the beginning of the film. I have to agree with cosmix 10 that Fry is marmite to the palate: you either love his or hate him. Sadly I fall into the latter category and cannot abide the man's work and probably wouldn't like him either if we ever met..

That said, cosmix 10 needs to learn better use of English. It is: "Might as well have been", or "Might as will've been" but not "Might as well of been".

Similarly: "probably could have worked", or "probably could've worked" but definitely not "probably could of worked".

I point out these things not just because I am a pedant, (which of course I am)but for your own good. Fry will read your review and laugh at you as an uneducated numbskull. If you want to really upset him, then write grammar as good or better than his own.

As for the Hippopotamus? Given that the homoerotic bath scene at the beginning, was followed almost immediately by the homoerotic stage play immediately afterwards, this somehow tells me it is probably not a film for me.

(PS to Fry: The reference to the 1980 stage play "The Romans in Britain", with its famous homosexual rape scene that provoked a law suit from Mary Whitehouse, was not lost. However, you may be surprised to hear it, but most people in Britain and America are not gay. Hence your film bombed even if you thought such references were clever. Pleas learn from your mistakes).