IMDb RATING
6.3/10
3.9K
YOUR RATING
A young school teacher tries to master the art of flirtation using his neighbor's skills.A young school teacher tries to master the art of flirtation using his neighbor's skills.A young school teacher tries to master the art of flirtation using his neighbor's skills.
- Nominated for 6 BAFTA Awards
- 5 wins & 9 nominations total
Dandy Nichols
- Tom's Landlady
- (as Dandy Nicholls)
Bernard Barnsley
- Policeman
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Reviewers fell all over themselves to praise this film when it came out. I personally tend to be a sucker for good, wild British comedy. I wanted to believe the reviews.
Why did they lie to me?!? Oh, have no doubt that at the time this was wild and crazy and totally unlike just about anything out there. I can see that in the film and I can also see the whole generation gap thing playing itself out in there as well. I see all that was said to be in there, except for great performances and the wacky comedy.
I shall not try to comment on story or plot. This film doesn't even pretend that those elements matter, and they certainly don't if you should happen to see this movie. You're there for the "event" of the film itself. Other than Rita Tushingham's heavenly eyes and lips, there IS no "event" worth hanging around to see.
This is one of those films that should be viewed only in the context of its place in film history. It fails to survive the passage of time on its own merits. It is merely an interesting curiosity from the 60s.
On another, short note, the soundtrack is incredible. It makes the film worth sitting through.
Why did they lie to me?!? Oh, have no doubt that at the time this was wild and crazy and totally unlike just about anything out there. I can see that in the film and I can also see the whole generation gap thing playing itself out in there as well. I see all that was said to be in there, except for great performances and the wacky comedy.
I shall not try to comment on story or plot. This film doesn't even pretend that those elements matter, and they certainly don't if you should happen to see this movie. You're there for the "event" of the film itself. Other than Rita Tushingham's heavenly eyes and lips, there IS no "event" worth hanging around to see.
This is one of those films that should be viewed only in the context of its place in film history. It fails to survive the passage of time on its own merits. It is merely an interesting curiosity from the 60s.
On another, short note, the soundtrack is incredible. It makes the film worth sitting through.
Attention, All You Carnally-Curious Viewers! - If you want the "knack" and seriously wanna know "how to get it" - Then steer clear of this quirky, off-the-wall, 1965, comedy - 'Cause it's sure to leave your head spinning, as you find yourself even more clueless than you already are.
If nothing else - "The Knack" (directed by American film-maker, Richard Lester) is (movie-wise) historically significant in that it is sandwiched in between 2 of Lester's more notable pictures - "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help!", which, of course, starred the Beatles.
Even though "The Knack" (which was set in London and filmed in b&w) is a pretty silly and scatterbrained tale about the lustful pursuit for sexual conquests - It certainly did have its interesting and entertaining moments.
And, yes - With "The Knack" now being 52 years old - It is, indeed, dated - But still definitely worth a view. Yet - With that said - I do caution you, that its decidedly-eccentric brand of humour isn't gonna appeal to everyone.
If nothing else - "The Knack" (directed by American film-maker, Richard Lester) is (movie-wise) historically significant in that it is sandwiched in between 2 of Lester's more notable pictures - "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help!", which, of course, starred the Beatles.
Even though "The Knack" (which was set in London and filmed in b&w) is a pretty silly and scatterbrained tale about the lustful pursuit for sexual conquests - It certainly did have its interesting and entertaining moments.
And, yes - With "The Knack" now being 52 years old - It is, indeed, dated - But still definitely worth a view. Yet - With that said - I do caution you, that its decidedly-eccentric brand of humour isn't gonna appeal to everyone.
There are lots of things to like in this movie: glimpses of London, black and white photography, likable young actors, old fogies, fast pace, great music, but one gets the impression that the original play was cut, and there is nothing that would have interested me more than the uncut play, flaws and all. That would have been more interesting than the touches from Max Sennett and Jacques Tati.
The play's central message seems quite conventional: nerd gets the best girl, playboy overwhelmed with his mannequins. For all the mockery of the old folks, the values permeating this plot are old folks' values. The view of women is passive. They don't swing, they are merely "taken advantage of", and the nicest girls is the most virginal, as if sexual activity were incompatible with niceness, and virginity were incompatible with napalm. But that's movies for you: always asserting the unassailable, rocking the cradle instead of the boat.
Tushingam steals the show. She has more screen presence than Garbo.
The play's central message seems quite conventional: nerd gets the best girl, playboy overwhelmed with his mannequins. For all the mockery of the old folks, the values permeating this plot are old folks' values. The view of women is passive. They don't swing, they are merely "taken advantage of", and the nicest girls is the most virginal, as if sexual activity were incompatible with niceness, and virginity were incompatible with napalm. But that's movies for you: always asserting the unassailable, rocking the cradle instead of the boat.
Tushingam steals the show. She has more screen presence than Garbo.
A young and sexually frustrated school teacher rents out a room in his old house to a hip drummer with a motorcycle who is an expert at seduction in the hope of learning how he does it. Crazy editing and a haphazard style make it a challenge for those of us brought up on westerns and film noirs. A youth movie for the 60's with Rita Tushingham who seemed to embody that period of youthful British cinema, with a decidedly British humor and a take on society and sex, all wrapped up in the anarchy of free form movie making. Similar in style to Lester's "Hard Day's Night" but without the Beatles to carry it, this film relies more on the patience of the viewer, as it has a nice little story within the chaos.
A steady stream of very attractive and nearly identical manikins come to life and march starry-eyed around the block and up the stairs to a flat where they briefly meet the object of their desire before dutifully signing his guest book on the way out. The man they came to see is the suave Lothario who will try to mentor the socially awkward teacher living downstairs in the "knack" of seducing women. As so often happens in situations like this, they will eventually end up competing for the affections of the same intriguing ingénue.
This may sound like an overused cliché likely to result in a formulaic romantic comedy, but director Richard Lester gives us something very different as he presents the story through a combination of exaggerated caricatures, fantasy sequences and zany metaphors. The result is that we are not so much interested in the details of the story as we are in the fun we have reaching the inevitable conclusion and the social commentary we encounter along the way.
Created in 1965, Lester makes a hefty contribution to the creation of a frenetic visual style of comedy which will be imitated with great commercial success throughout the rest of the decade (think "Laugh-In"). With its mod styling, rapid-fire editing, non sequiturs and wacky antics, Lester effectively uses this style to provide some wickedly clever parody of early 1960s sexism, conformity and consumerism.
The film is unfortunately not without some serious flaws. The comic style which may have seemed fresh and exciting at the time has not aged well. The good-natured mood of the film robs the social commentary of any punch or staying power, as does the failure to integrate it into a unifying framework. Also, the four main characters may be wonderfully portrayed with excellent comic acting, but only one of them is scripted such that he ever becomes human enough for us to care what happens to him, something which is essential in a story that is entirely about the relationships between the main characters.
One may find this to be a very enjoyable and memorable film in spite of these flaws, but it clearly requires that you recognize how to accept what it attempts to offer rather than criticizing it for what it doesn't deliver. I'd also think that it's a valuable film for anyone interested in the 1960s mass media image of swinging London and in the trends influencing popular entertainment during that time period.
This may sound like an overused cliché likely to result in a formulaic romantic comedy, but director Richard Lester gives us something very different as he presents the story through a combination of exaggerated caricatures, fantasy sequences and zany metaphors. The result is that we are not so much interested in the details of the story as we are in the fun we have reaching the inevitable conclusion and the social commentary we encounter along the way.
Created in 1965, Lester makes a hefty contribution to the creation of a frenetic visual style of comedy which will be imitated with great commercial success throughout the rest of the decade (think "Laugh-In"). With its mod styling, rapid-fire editing, non sequiturs and wacky antics, Lester effectively uses this style to provide some wickedly clever parody of early 1960s sexism, conformity and consumerism.
The film is unfortunately not without some serious flaws. The comic style which may have seemed fresh and exciting at the time has not aged well. The good-natured mood of the film robs the social commentary of any punch or staying power, as does the failure to integrate it into a unifying framework. Also, the four main characters may be wonderfully portrayed with excellent comic acting, but only one of them is scripted such that he ever becomes human enough for us to care what happens to him, something which is essential in a story that is entirely about the relationships between the main characters.
One may find this to be a very enjoyable and memorable film in spite of these flaws, but it clearly requires that you recognize how to accept what it attempts to offer rather than criticizing it for what it doesn't deliver. I'd also think that it's a valuable film for anyone interested in the 1960s mass media image of swinging London and in the trends influencing popular entertainment during that time period.
Did you know
- TriviaThe Ann Jellicoe play on which this movie is based is a much straighter affair. When Richard Lester came on board, he added his own unique touches such as straight-to-camera direct addresses, humorous subtitles and a Greek chorus of disapproving members of "the older generation".
- Quotes
Nancy Jones: Rape!
Woman in House: Not today thank you.
- Crazy creditsThe closing credits (cast and crew) consist of rows of identical photographs and character/actor names, arranged like a series of photographer's contact prints of a strip of negatives.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Hollywood U.K. British Cinema in the Sixties: Northern Lights (1993)
- SoundtracksThe Knack (Main Theme)
Written by John Barry
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- The Knack... and How to Get It
- Filming locations
- 1 Melrose Terrace, Hammersmith, London, England, UK(apartment: the White Pad)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $364,000 (estimated)
- Runtime1 hour 25 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Le Knack... et comment l'avoir (1965) officially released in India in English?
Answer