15 recensioni
After his role in Antonioni's "Blow-Up" in 1966, David Hemmings was regarded, together with Michael Caine, Alan Bates and Terence Stamp, as one of the rising young male stars of the British cinema. He never, however, seemed to live up to his early promise, and "The Best House in London", made only three years later, perhaps represents an early stage in the decline of his career.
The film is a comedy about a proposal to set up a government-sponsored brothel in Victorian London and the resistance to that proposal led by Lady Josephine Pacefoot, an anti-prostitution campaigner. Hemmings plays two characters, Walter Leybourne, the instigator of the scheme, and Benjamin Oakes, an idealistic young journalist who gets involved in Lady Josephine's campaign. The physical similarity between the two men is explained when they turn out to be long-lost half-brothers; both (implausibly, given Hemmings's blond looks) are illegitimate sons of the Chinese Ambassador.
The film is some time during the reign of Queen Victoria, although it is impossible to be more precise than that. The fact that Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning are courting but not yet married would suggest that the action takes place around 1845. (They married in 1846). The presence of Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas, who first met in 1891, coupled with references to Jack the Ripper (1888) and the Eiffel Tower (1889), would however suggest a date nearly fifty years later. The writer Denis Norden stuffed the script with references to events such as the Opium Wars and the Indian Mutiny and there are walk-on appearances by various other Victorian celebrities, such as Dickens and Tennyson. Norden seems to have deliberately ignored the fact that, as Victoria ruled for over sixty years, many people whom we think of as "Victorians" were far from exact contemporaries of one another.
I was surprised to see reviews on this board comparing the film to Monty Python, as it seems to me to have little to do with the Pythonesque or Goonish tradition of surreal humour, despite the presence of a pre-Python John Cleese in a minor role. Rather, it derives from a quite different strand of British humour, the bawdy tradition of the "Carry On" films. This tradition was already strong in the late sixties, and was to become the dominant one in the British cinema (although fortunately not on television) during the seventies. The film has also been described as satirical, although it contains little satire worthy of the name; it is hardly cutting-edge humour to satirise the ways of a hundred years ago. As for the suggestion that Josephine Pacefoot is a satirical portrait of Dame Josephine Butler, I cannot for the life of me see why Norden might have wanted to satirise someone who had been dead for more than sixty years when the film was made and who the great majority of his audience would never have heard of.
What the film does contain is a good deal of semi-nudity and innuendo-laden humour. Most sixties sex comedies today seem about as offensive as a seaside postcard, and a lot of the material in "The Best House in London" today seems bland and harmless, if not particularly funny. Nevertheless, some scenes actually seem worse today than they probably did forty years ago. At one point we hear a suggestive song about "my pussy". Had this song been performed by an adult woman, it would today provoke nothing more than a sigh of "Oh no! Not that old joke again!" (Even in the sixties jokes playing on the fact that the same word can mean both "cat" and "vagina" must have seemed pretty corny). As, however, it is sung by a young child, it comes across today as an unpleasant, even sinister, piece of humour.
Although the film does not tell us much about the age in which it is ostensibly set, it does perhaps inadvertently tell us something about the age in which it was made. It is essentially a two-joke film. The first joke is that, behind a mask of piety and respectability, Victorian men were in fact all incredibly randy. The second joke is that Victorian women were mostly at heart prostitutes; the saintly Lady Josephine's endeavours to save women from a life of degradation are constantly thwarted by the fact that they do not want to be saved and would much prefer to continue to prostitute themselves.
The first of these jokes is perhaps based upon a half-truth; social disapproval of vice and prostitution has never, in the Victorian age or any other, prevented it from flourishing. Behind the laughter, however, one can detect the uneasiness which the advocates of sixties permissiveness felt about Victorian values; the film never tackles nineteenth-century objections to prostitution head on but evades them by suggesting that they were never anything more than a hypocritical façade. As for the second joke, that is surely rooted in some very strange and distorted attitudes towards women. The wonder is that forty years ago such attitudes were put forward as being somehow progressive. Neither joke ever succeeds in raising many laughs. 4/10
The film is a comedy about a proposal to set up a government-sponsored brothel in Victorian London and the resistance to that proposal led by Lady Josephine Pacefoot, an anti-prostitution campaigner. Hemmings plays two characters, Walter Leybourne, the instigator of the scheme, and Benjamin Oakes, an idealistic young journalist who gets involved in Lady Josephine's campaign. The physical similarity between the two men is explained when they turn out to be long-lost half-brothers; both (implausibly, given Hemmings's blond looks) are illegitimate sons of the Chinese Ambassador.
The film is some time during the reign of Queen Victoria, although it is impossible to be more precise than that. The fact that Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning are courting but not yet married would suggest that the action takes place around 1845. (They married in 1846). The presence of Oscar Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas, who first met in 1891, coupled with references to Jack the Ripper (1888) and the Eiffel Tower (1889), would however suggest a date nearly fifty years later. The writer Denis Norden stuffed the script with references to events such as the Opium Wars and the Indian Mutiny and there are walk-on appearances by various other Victorian celebrities, such as Dickens and Tennyson. Norden seems to have deliberately ignored the fact that, as Victoria ruled for over sixty years, many people whom we think of as "Victorians" were far from exact contemporaries of one another.
I was surprised to see reviews on this board comparing the film to Monty Python, as it seems to me to have little to do with the Pythonesque or Goonish tradition of surreal humour, despite the presence of a pre-Python John Cleese in a minor role. Rather, it derives from a quite different strand of British humour, the bawdy tradition of the "Carry On" films. This tradition was already strong in the late sixties, and was to become the dominant one in the British cinema (although fortunately not on television) during the seventies. The film has also been described as satirical, although it contains little satire worthy of the name; it is hardly cutting-edge humour to satirise the ways of a hundred years ago. As for the suggestion that Josephine Pacefoot is a satirical portrait of Dame Josephine Butler, I cannot for the life of me see why Norden might have wanted to satirise someone who had been dead for more than sixty years when the film was made and who the great majority of his audience would never have heard of.
What the film does contain is a good deal of semi-nudity and innuendo-laden humour. Most sixties sex comedies today seem about as offensive as a seaside postcard, and a lot of the material in "The Best House in London" today seems bland and harmless, if not particularly funny. Nevertheless, some scenes actually seem worse today than they probably did forty years ago. At one point we hear a suggestive song about "my pussy". Had this song been performed by an adult woman, it would today provoke nothing more than a sigh of "Oh no! Not that old joke again!" (Even in the sixties jokes playing on the fact that the same word can mean both "cat" and "vagina" must have seemed pretty corny). As, however, it is sung by a young child, it comes across today as an unpleasant, even sinister, piece of humour.
Although the film does not tell us much about the age in which it is ostensibly set, it does perhaps inadvertently tell us something about the age in which it was made. It is essentially a two-joke film. The first joke is that, behind a mask of piety and respectability, Victorian men were in fact all incredibly randy. The second joke is that Victorian women were mostly at heart prostitutes; the saintly Lady Josephine's endeavours to save women from a life of degradation are constantly thwarted by the fact that they do not want to be saved and would much prefer to continue to prostitute themselves.
The first of these jokes is perhaps based upon a half-truth; social disapproval of vice and prostitution has never, in the Victorian age or any other, prevented it from flourishing. Behind the laughter, however, one can detect the uneasiness which the advocates of sixties permissiveness felt about Victorian values; the film never tackles nineteenth-century objections to prostitution head on but evades them by suggesting that they were never anything more than a hypocritical façade. As for the second joke, that is surely rooted in some very strange and distorted attitudes towards women. The wonder is that forty years ago such attitudes were put forward as being somehow progressive. Neither joke ever succeeds in raising many laughs. 4/10
- JamesHitchcock
- 28 apr 2008
- Permalink
One of the earliest and certainly one of the most lavish of the British sex comedies that were to proliferate over the following decade, and typical of its time in the lampooning of Victorian double standards, a period then regarded as the ultimate in repression, prudery and hypocrisy. Today's audiences, reputedly as eager to take offence as any Victorian maiden aunt will no doubt find much of the content fairly deplorable, including a white actor 'yellowed-up' as a Chinese delegate. Though you don't have to be a censorious millennial to feel uneasy at some of the material, the jokes about rape and the flippant attitude to young girls in brothels, not to mention a particularly crass piece of innuendo in a song from a little girl, especially in the light of what we now know about the likes of Jimmy Savile and co at the time. David Hemmings stars in a dual role but struggles to convince in either. Despite all this Denis Norden's script does conjure up its share of amusing moments and it is fun spotting the numerous well-known actors and celebrities of the time popping up in cameo roles.
In Victorian London, Josephie Pacefoot (Joanna Pettet) leads the purity girls in demanding reform to save women from sex work. Flying enthusiast Benjamin Oakes (David Hemmings) comes to the rescue of Josephie and her fallen women. Various recollection of women 'suffering' their poor indignities perpetrated by men sometimes played by David Hemmings. He has an evil doppelganger.
It's a sex comedy and it's an odd one. The central theme is that these women are being taken advantaged by these men. In the recreations, the women are gleefully being 'taken advantaged'. It's not a funny joke. The choppy nature of the film doesn't help. It's one vignette after another and few are even mildly funny. I don't care about Josephie and Benjamin. The plot does sometimes take interesting turns, but I still don't care. It's an unfunny sex comedy.
It's a sex comedy and it's an odd one. The central theme is that these women are being taken advantaged by these men. In the recreations, the women are gleefully being 'taken advantaged'. It's not a funny joke. The choppy nature of the film doesn't help. It's one vignette after another and few are even mildly funny. I don't care about Josephie and Benjamin. The plot does sometimes take interesting turns, but I still don't care. It's an unfunny sex comedy.
- SnoopyStyle
- 1 set 2023
- Permalink
This is a classic Bad British Movie. Stalwarts of British comedy acting then and later, plus George Sanders, fight manfully against one of the stupidest plots imaginable - about a government-sponsored brothel for the gentry in late 19th century London. Basically, it was an excuse to have a lot of young women prancing about in lingerie, maid's uniforms, pretty frocks, while baring the occasional boob.
The plot, such as it is, is mainly advanced by extraordinarily implausible coincidences and bizarre happenings, and it's about as silly as you can get.
It's a formula movie, and it sucks. Unfortunately, it isn't quite awful enough to be 'so bad it's good'. It's just excruciating.
However, it was written by Denis Norden, who may have no idea about plot or character, but is a fantastic quip-writer. There are scores of literary and historical jokes: one- and two-liners, many of them screamingly funny if you're familiar with the works of Wilde, Dickens, Trollope, Galsworthy, Tennyson et al, and with historical people like Emmeline Pankhurst and Dr Livingstone. Jokes as good as these are wasted on this awful film.
The plot, such as it is, is mainly advanced by extraordinarily implausible coincidences and bizarre happenings, and it's about as silly as you can get.
It's a formula movie, and it sucks. Unfortunately, it isn't quite awful enough to be 'so bad it's good'. It's just excruciating.
However, it was written by Denis Norden, who may have no idea about plot or character, but is a fantastic quip-writer. There are scores of literary and historical jokes: one- and two-liners, many of them screamingly funny if you're familiar with the works of Wilde, Dickens, Trollope, Galsworthy, Tennyson et al, and with historical people like Emmeline Pankhurst and Dr Livingstone. Jokes as good as these are wasted on this awful film.
- Penfold-13
- 25 ago 1999
- Permalink
From today's perspective, The Best House In London is potentially uncomfortable viewing in an era of political correctness. Therefore what this film illustrates is that for all its good intentions political correctness hampers debate on sensitive issues such as that of prostitution which in current English law can only be a label applied to a woman who is perceived by a police officer as soliciting for such an activity.
More to the point the film illustrates the double standards of English society and its discomfort with the street variety as opposed to prostitution in general. What this further illustrates is that society is concerned more with being exposed to its double standards and how it perceives street prostitution without regard to the women involved who as the film portrays, are happy to participate in the profession. This point is illustrated in the film within context of the lack of opportunities for women to escape their impoverished lives in which there is no other options open to them.
The 'double standards' of the discomfort over street prostitution among the Victorian middle classes is illustrated via the character Josephine Pacefoot, (Joanna Pettet) who is in fact a satire of the famous Josephine Butler. Josephine Butler (1828 - 1906) was an upper middle class 19th Century philanthropic feminist who espoused the radical liberal tradition of the then Whigs as her Father did before her. Josephine Butler concerned herself with those deemed to be and as such labelled 'fallen women' giving street prostitutes a negative label by default. Butler was keen to rescue the so called 'fallen women' many of whom were criminalised via the Contagious Disease Acts of the 1860s. These acts permitted any unmarried woman to be subject to a 'virginity test'. If the woman failed the virginity test she was ostracised by society and prevented from gaining legitimate employment. This left many unmarried women vulnerable to men any of whom could request they have a virginity test for the purpose of recruiting them into prostitution if they failed and thereby trading these women. This point is illustrated in the film.
It is interesting that the 19th Century Contagious Disease Act affected women at the time of the rise of feminism in England. What The Best House In London illustrates is that feminism has a double edged sword. This double edged sword of feminism means the cause is a middle class one premised on liberation, the endeavours of which leave many poor and working class women vulnerable to exploitation, which in this film is illustrated via street prostitution. But it veers into all manner of legitimate employment as women are in most cases cheaper to employ as they're more likely of accepting lower wages that men reject.
The Best House In London is a series of sketches thread together via the issue of 'street prostitution' It seems that the original intention of the film was to reference as many as possible of the Victorian luminaries who shaped modernity and its attitudes.
For the issues it raises and the debate it permits, then The Best House In London is an interesting film produced in the style of Monty Python. In other words it's silly. It therefore illustrates that 'silly' is a positive as it exaggerates issues to express the point and as such is a clever method of comedic genre and satirical expressionism to coin a phrase.
More to the point the film illustrates the double standards of English society and its discomfort with the street variety as opposed to prostitution in general. What this further illustrates is that society is concerned more with being exposed to its double standards and how it perceives street prostitution without regard to the women involved who as the film portrays, are happy to participate in the profession. This point is illustrated in the film within context of the lack of opportunities for women to escape their impoverished lives in which there is no other options open to them.
The 'double standards' of the discomfort over street prostitution among the Victorian middle classes is illustrated via the character Josephine Pacefoot, (Joanna Pettet) who is in fact a satire of the famous Josephine Butler. Josephine Butler (1828 - 1906) was an upper middle class 19th Century philanthropic feminist who espoused the radical liberal tradition of the then Whigs as her Father did before her. Josephine Butler concerned herself with those deemed to be and as such labelled 'fallen women' giving street prostitutes a negative label by default. Butler was keen to rescue the so called 'fallen women' many of whom were criminalised via the Contagious Disease Acts of the 1860s. These acts permitted any unmarried woman to be subject to a 'virginity test'. If the woman failed the virginity test she was ostracised by society and prevented from gaining legitimate employment. This left many unmarried women vulnerable to men any of whom could request they have a virginity test for the purpose of recruiting them into prostitution if they failed and thereby trading these women. This point is illustrated in the film.
It is interesting that the 19th Century Contagious Disease Act affected women at the time of the rise of feminism in England. What The Best House In London illustrates is that feminism has a double edged sword. This double edged sword of feminism means the cause is a middle class one premised on liberation, the endeavours of which leave many poor and working class women vulnerable to exploitation, which in this film is illustrated via street prostitution. But it veers into all manner of legitimate employment as women are in most cases cheaper to employ as they're more likely of accepting lower wages that men reject.
The Best House In London is a series of sketches thread together via the issue of 'street prostitution' It seems that the original intention of the film was to reference as many as possible of the Victorian luminaries who shaped modernity and its attitudes.
For the issues it raises and the debate it permits, then The Best House In London is an interesting film produced in the style of Monty Python. In other words it's silly. It therefore illustrates that 'silly' is a positive as it exaggerates issues to express the point and as such is a clever method of comedic genre and satirical expressionism to coin a phrase.
- alexandra-25
- 22 apr 2008
- Permalink
For some unfathomable reason Dennis Borden seemed incapable of writing a decent film script. When he came to radio and tv he seemed rather more in his element.
This film was made towards the end of Hollywood's infatuation with the British film industry. One year after this film was made MGM closed their Borehamwood film studios and were in some danger of going into insolvency.
This film rather highlights the indulgence shown to British films at this period. I got to around 30minutes Mark at which time I just couldn't fathom.what on earth was happening. David Jennings was already on his decline when this film was made.
This film was made towards the end of Hollywood's infatuation with the British film industry. One year after this film was made MGM closed their Borehamwood film studios and were in some danger of going into insolvency.
This film rather highlights the indulgence shown to British films at this period. I got to around 30minutes Mark at which time I just couldn't fathom.what on earth was happening. David Jennings was already on his decline when this film was made.
- malcolmgsw
- 11 apr 2024
- Permalink
I don't know how to add items to the other sections of this site so I will put an interesting tit-bit (!) here! I played one of the extras in Oliver (NOT one of the boys) and was amazed to see many of the locations on the back lot used here. Not only that they also used many of the same vehicles, props and I even recognised some of the horses! Given that Oliver is a family movie and this is anything but it's an interesting fact. I'm told that the Oliver set was left to slowly moulder away for many years - what a waste! Oh yes this film? Well it's not THAT bad and is a dream for those who like to count the well known bit part players. Must have spent the money saved on scenery on extras! ;-)
Like a great deal of British comedy of the time, The Best House In London ends up degenerating into wacky silliness toward the end. But then, when you've referenced just about every other British literary genius and comic of the last two centuries, failing to give an enthusiastic nod and bow to the Goons would be rude. And rude just will not do.
Some may consider films such as these "bad", and theoretically I guess they'd be right. But if you're even a passing fan of the British comedy tradition, this movie brings together an intelligent and funny script by the brilliant Denis Norden, and a large cast of inspired and famous British comics. Its outrageous premise offers scope for first-class humour, great inter-textual pedantry, and witty social commentary. In the tradition of the Goons, the film is a biting and staggeringly funny indictment of Victorian moralism and piety, which was as apt in the post-war decades as it is in the politically-correct eco-religious world of today.
If you object to seeing middle-class hypocrisies (not to mention none-too-innocent maidens) skewered, don't see it. Otherwise, I can heartily recommend it.
If you're a fan of British humour, you need this in your collection, alongside the Goons, the Pink Panther, Blackadder, Monty Python, Spitting Image and the collected writings of Oscar Wilde, Spike Milligan and PG Wodehouse.
Grand stuff.
Some may consider films such as these "bad", and theoretically I guess they'd be right. But if you're even a passing fan of the British comedy tradition, this movie brings together an intelligent and funny script by the brilliant Denis Norden, and a large cast of inspired and famous British comics. Its outrageous premise offers scope for first-class humour, great inter-textual pedantry, and witty social commentary. In the tradition of the Goons, the film is a biting and staggeringly funny indictment of Victorian moralism and piety, which was as apt in the post-war decades as it is in the politically-correct eco-religious world of today.
If you object to seeing middle-class hypocrisies (not to mention none-too-innocent maidens) skewered, don't see it. Otherwise, I can heartily recommend it.
If you're a fan of British humour, you need this in your collection, alongside the Goons, the Pink Panther, Blackadder, Monty Python, Spitting Image and the collected writings of Oscar Wilde, Spike Milligan and PG Wodehouse.
Grand stuff.
The powers-that-be in Victorian London note the rise of street prostitution in their capital city and come up with the "French System." A kind of upmarket government-sanctioned brothel. However the public (and the police) aren't let on about their little secret.
This is the 1960's and the wild, the wacky, and the wacky-baccy has started to get to people's heads. This is one of those films that you feel is going to end up with a speed-ed up chase scene with all that you have learnt so far carefully junked -- but it doesn't quite get there. Close -- but not quite.
However it is also a classic case of setting up a plot and not bothering with it after a certain point in time. Maybe it didn't fit in with the bare breast quota laid down by the producers or maybe they spent too much time try to work out how to best film down a woman's cleavage?
The casting of the (now late) David Hemmings in a double role (bad/good) is a fatal mistake because both characters act pretty much the same and we only have hair colour to tell one from the other. After Blow Up he was seen as hot property although he is a cold fish who can't act a jot!
If you don't come from England and don't know Victorian literature then a lot is going to fly over your head. Given that the jokes are rare enough already the film can't afford their loss -- especially to a world audience. Indeed some of the jokes are in very bad taste: A little girl singing about her "little pussy" while we focus on George Sanders doing double-takes wouldn't be allowed today.
The Best House in London doesn't really have a plot more a laundry list of things that they want to get in. A mad Italian with an airship, the temperance movement, the Suffragettes, the upper/lower classes, people that are pro/anti the whore trade and women that don't want to be saved from a life of vice. Big money has been spent on the sets (complete with half dressed girls) and the left over change has gone on the script.
This is the kind of stuff I like watching late at night when I can't sleep (TCM puts it on that this time) when on-screen energy means more than common-sense. I am giving it a seven because I was entertained, but maybe that seven says just as much about me, where I come from and what I like than it does about the film. I can forgive campy nonsense -- can you?
This is the 1960's and the wild, the wacky, and the wacky-baccy has started to get to people's heads. This is one of those films that you feel is going to end up with a speed-ed up chase scene with all that you have learnt so far carefully junked -- but it doesn't quite get there. Close -- but not quite.
However it is also a classic case of setting up a plot and not bothering with it after a certain point in time. Maybe it didn't fit in with the bare breast quota laid down by the producers or maybe they spent too much time try to work out how to best film down a woman's cleavage?
The casting of the (now late) David Hemmings in a double role (bad/good) is a fatal mistake because both characters act pretty much the same and we only have hair colour to tell one from the other. After Blow Up he was seen as hot property although he is a cold fish who can't act a jot!
If you don't come from England and don't know Victorian literature then a lot is going to fly over your head. Given that the jokes are rare enough already the film can't afford their loss -- especially to a world audience. Indeed some of the jokes are in very bad taste: A little girl singing about her "little pussy" while we focus on George Sanders doing double-takes wouldn't be allowed today.
The Best House in London doesn't really have a plot more a laundry list of things that they want to get in. A mad Italian with an airship, the temperance movement, the Suffragettes, the upper/lower classes, people that are pro/anti the whore trade and women that don't want to be saved from a life of vice. Big money has been spent on the sets (complete with half dressed girls) and the left over change has gone on the script.
This is the kind of stuff I like watching late at night when I can't sleep (TCM puts it on that this time) when on-screen energy means more than common-sense. I am giving it a seven because I was entertained, but maybe that seven says just as much about me, where I come from and what I like than it does about the film. I can forgive campy nonsense -- can you?
I don't believe this is a spoiler, but I'm not sure what CRUCIAL plot element is so extremely sensitive viewers beware!
First I wanna say that I am not a picky "watcher" and I am fully aware of what others think of this movie (thats it's really bad), I wont say that it's a well thought up movie but I will say this:It's quite a unique movie, that's for sure. One of the reasons why I gave it a six is that in spite of all the bad press i found it to be intriguing, the plot may be a little strange but it was interesting to watch.
Now, I don't know what The "message" was supposed to be, it is about this girl that wants to save "fallen girls" (if I'm allowed to say that), but the movie also contains a lot of unnecessary partial-nudity. So one wonders, was it supposed to support anti-prostitution in a comedic way or was it just about entertaining the crowd by "showing some skin" on television? My opinion about the film is not based on whether it is meaningful or even tasteful. It's based on the fact that it was amusing for me to watch, a light read, one might call it, well if it was a book that is.
Six out of ten stars is pretty high but this is how I rate: 5 is OK (watchable) and ten is incredible. So six to me is good enough to want to watch again. I can't really explain why I found it so appeasing, I guess you're just gonna have to watch it yourselves.
The "bad" things about the movie were that it was a little confusing at times, like if there were scenes missing or something. As I mentioned before it was a little strange. I really can't judge the acting, since I don't usually watch old movies. They spoke a little different in movies back then.
That's really all I have to say about this film.
First I wanna say that I am not a picky "watcher" and I am fully aware of what others think of this movie (thats it's really bad), I wont say that it's a well thought up movie but I will say this:It's quite a unique movie, that's for sure. One of the reasons why I gave it a six is that in spite of all the bad press i found it to be intriguing, the plot may be a little strange but it was interesting to watch.
Now, I don't know what The "message" was supposed to be, it is about this girl that wants to save "fallen girls" (if I'm allowed to say that), but the movie also contains a lot of unnecessary partial-nudity. So one wonders, was it supposed to support anti-prostitution in a comedic way or was it just about entertaining the crowd by "showing some skin" on television? My opinion about the film is not based on whether it is meaningful or even tasteful. It's based on the fact that it was amusing for me to watch, a light read, one might call it, well if it was a book that is.
Six out of ten stars is pretty high but this is how I rate: 5 is OK (watchable) and ten is incredible. So six to me is good enough to want to watch again. I can't really explain why I found it so appeasing, I guess you're just gonna have to watch it yourselves.
The "bad" things about the movie were that it was a little confusing at times, like if there were scenes missing or something. As I mentioned before it was a little strange. I really can't judge the acting, since I don't usually watch old movies. They spoke a little different in movies back then.
That's really all I have to say about this film.
- sea1313_zome
- 21 dic 2005
- Permalink
What to say about this snapshot of every comedian in Britain being very, very silly? The acting isn't always great, but that isn't what it is about. It is essentially a series of sketches back to back, tacked onto the very slightly naughty plot line involving airships, brothels, opium, social reform, and more. In among all that are some truly inspired moments ("You mutinous dogs! Shoot if you dare....!") is one of the funniest moments of all time, in my opinion. And having John Cleese in such a tiny role? Wow. Also look out for brilliant cameos by such Victorian worthies as Emmeline Pankhurst and Charles Dickens. All in all.... just watch the thing. OK?
- mark.waltz
- 4 set 2023
- Permalink
I am a fan of British films. I also fondly remember many great British movies from the 60s. I wondered why I couldn't remember this one. now I know- it is terrible!
After the first ten minutes the plot is so muddled that the average viewer will give up.
I stuck with this hoping it would get better. By the middle, I was completely confused and bored. It seems every stereotypical character from the Victorian era is thrown in.
I was half expecting to see Sherlock Holmes. It's true that this movie mixes historical characters with fictional ones without regard to the era. Dickens appears along with those from a later period. But you won't notice. By that time you'll be bored or asleep.
There are a few scenes that really offended me, such as the one with the little girl singing the stupid song. I am surprised that TCM put this on in the daytime.
Stay away.
After the first ten minutes the plot is so muddled that the average viewer will give up.
I stuck with this hoping it would get better. By the middle, I was completely confused and bored. It seems every stereotypical character from the Victorian era is thrown in.
I was half expecting to see Sherlock Holmes. It's true that this movie mixes historical characters with fictional ones without regard to the era. Dickens appears along with those from a later period. But you won't notice. By that time you'll be bored or asleep.
There are a few scenes that really offended me, such as the one with the little girl singing the stupid song. I am surprised that TCM put this on in the daytime.
Stay away.
This is British sex farce that puts all others to shame -- except there is no shame here.
If you can accept it for what it was -- not what it isn't, now -- and resist being revisionist about it, then you can enjoy it in spite of yourself. The ladies are lovely, the stories are silly and the acting is more than adequate throughout. Appreciation of it is helped if you were in at least your late adolescence when it was made, in 1969, can still remember what society and culture were like then, and haven't yet lost your sense of humor and the absurd. And to see the sets from "Oliver" and "Scrooge" in a decidedly different kind of film only adds to the enjoyment.
It's also worthwhile considering it as a Joanna Pettet double-feature, with the other one being Casino Royale (1967), which is also guaranteed to offend many currently but is still worth a watch to fully appreciate those times and mores. Might want to give "Barbarella" a look, too, for a David Hemmings tie-in.
If you can accept it for what it was -- not what it isn't, now -- and resist being revisionist about it, then you can enjoy it in spite of yourself. The ladies are lovely, the stories are silly and the acting is more than adequate throughout. Appreciation of it is helped if you were in at least your late adolescence when it was made, in 1969, can still remember what society and culture were like then, and haven't yet lost your sense of humor and the absurd. And to see the sets from "Oliver" and "Scrooge" in a decidedly different kind of film only adds to the enjoyment.
It's also worthwhile considering it as a Joanna Pettet double-feature, with the other one being Casino Royale (1967), which is also guaranteed to offend many currently but is still worth a watch to fully appreciate those times and mores. Might want to give "Barbarella" a look, too, for a David Hemmings tie-in.
- Lookedagain
- 10 set 2023
- Permalink