Hold On!

I recently saw Hold On! on TCM in wide screen format and I liked it. It helps to be a fan of 1960s British music, as Hermans Hermits are featured. I guess this was their answer to the Beatles movies of that era. The plot is crazy and the acting is fair at best, but there was enough music and foolishness to keep me interested. A good example of a 1960s pop music movie.

I found Hold On to be fascinatingly inappropriate. The filmmakers obviously wanted to cash in on the British Invasion and the success of the Beatles movies, but they clearly were totally out of touch with the youth culture of the time. They made a movie in 1966 starring one of the most popular groups of the 60s, and everything about the film screams the 50s: the writing, the direction, even the incidental music on the soundtrack. I don't blame Arthur Lubin, who was 65 years old at the time and a veteran of 1940s and 1950s films and 1950s and 1960s TV shows. That's exactly what Hold On reminds me of: a peculiar blend of a 1950s movie and a 1960s TV show. It has the look, the sound, even the feel. The producers should have hired someone who had a better feel for the pop music culture of the 1960s. Imagine the Beatles dropped in the middle of a beach party movie, or a Rock Hudson/Doris Day film. Except, of course, the Beatles could act.

This film is not to be missed, because it is surely a candidate for the worst film of all time. It has the look and feel of the Batman TV series, but is nowhere near as interesting or funny.

The humour is purile at best and the music defies belief. And I like 60's music. After watching this turkey, EVERY modern film looks like Citizen Kane.

If the budget for this film was more than $100, I want to know what they blew it all on.

I always liked the songs performed by Herman's Hermits. Simple songs with a catchy melody that seems to stay with you for a long time. With that in mind, I couldn't wait to see the band in the film, "Hold On." Shelley Fabares was hot looking but the band including Herman (Peter No one) seemed lame in comparison. The story was unbelievable, and the scenes seemed over staged. In comparison, in the Beatle's film, "A Hard Days Night" the crowd scenes seemed real, VERY real. "Hold On" looked like it was all shot on the back lot of a studio. It's wrong to compare the Beatles with Herman's Hermits, but if there was a better script for "Hold On" and if the viewer could actually see the personalities of the other band members, we would have had a better film. If you are a fan of Herman's Hermits, by all means don't miss this film. Like I said before, Shelley Fabares is eye candy and Herman (Peter No one) does have a few good moments with his famous facial expressions throughout the film. The music alone is worth a watch, but by no means take this movie as a serious venue. Bottom line, it's cute and a fun watch. We'll always wonder what could have been made with a good script? We'll never know.

There are a lot of comments on what a ridiculous movie this was. And those comments describe this movie perfectly. Yes, it's true. But get real! This movie is supposed to be ridiculous. The plot of the movie is about an English band who tour the United States. (In 1966, the English Invasion still ruled the radio and British groups were still being mobbed by screaming fans!)

Herman's Hermits come to the States and are greeted by wild screaming fans. The frenzy gets so far out of hand that NASA gets swamped with demands that the name of the latest rocket to be launched be changed to "Herman's Hermits".

Most musicals involve a screwball plot. HOLD ON is no exception. Only a complete idiot would expect a "meaningful plot" in a movie like this. It is pure escapist entertainment played up to a ridiculous level.

I saw the movie in 1967, which was a long time ago. So I don't remember if there were any bad guys in the plot of not. What I do remember is that the real plot of this movie is the showcasing of the latest (in 1966) sounds by Herman's Hermits, who at that time were close to taking second place to the Beatles in popularity.

I gave the movie a 7 because it was a movie from the mid 1960s that may be outdated by today's standards. Some of the comedy of the time may not be so funny today. Think BEWITCHED (1964 TV series) versus BEWITCHED (2005) and you'll get the drift.