Hold On!

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 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.

Herman's Hermits is visiting America on a tour and hi-jinx ensues. After the success of the Beatles, I'm sure every British band would aim to follow in their footsteps. Some actually got their films made. For that, Herman's Hermits needs to be congratulated but it does not make them the Beatles. Quite frankly, they falter by the comparison. They don't have as much charisma. They should be the stars in every frame of this movie but they're not. While they're the leads, they aren't really leading. They're being led. They're not the drivers of their own train. The story is all wrong. The guys need to have most of the dialogue and be constantly on screen. If not, then what's the point.

In its brief vogue of popularity, Herman's Hermits tried to keep the bubblegum popularity of the Beatles after the Beatles and the rest of the culture went psychedelic and counterculture. In that they were successful as long as the vogue for them lasted. Even today lead singer Peter Blair Dennis No one enjoys a lot of popularity on the nostalgia circuit among his aging fans.

Some have said that Hold On! is a ripoff of A Hard Day's Night and it follows that pattern to some degree. Actually it's more like an extended version of a Monkey's television show. And down to today you can still see pop groups still using this model, just look at the Jonas Brothers television series on the Disney Channel.

In a whirlwind tour of the USA, Herman's Hermits becomes the victims of a publicity seeking actress played by Sue Ane Langdon, they get a NASA rocket named for them, and No one gets himself involved with young society girl Shelley Fabares whose mother has bought the Hermits for one of her society charity events. Some of these things don't quite come off as well as the others.

The aging fans of Herman's Hermits will remember Hold On! with nostalgia. What the film does lack is any of the identifiable songs from the boys back in the day. The score is hardly that of A Hard Day's Night or even Help!. But the film is a pleasant enough diversion and I don't think those who watch it are expecting too much.

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.