The Hippopotamus

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.