The adventures of an Australian singer in London.The adventures of an Australian singer in London.The adventures of an Australian singer in London.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I never got past the first 10 minutes.
It is the greatest load of tripe I have ever seen.
The story may not make a great deal of sense though it hardly matters. Rather it unfolds in the manner of a dream, at times resembling a series of Python-esque sketches, even though this was apparently the result of scripting problems as much as by intention. Your enjoyment essentially depends on your appreciation of Frank Ifield's musical numbers. I enjoyed them immensely and was surprised at the low ratings for this sunny and cheerful piece of escapism. Giving strong support is Ronnie Radd, one of the most talented, versatile and prolific character actors of the period, who was sadly taken from us far too soon.
10p-halley
If you like Richard Wattis or Bryan Mosley(Alf Roberts), not forgetting the lovely Annette Andre(Pre Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased), then this film is for you.Suzy Kendall is good but she doesn't really appear as much as Annette A. Some surreal moments are well interspersed-a rare thing these days. If you like 'Smashing Time' or 'The Sandwich Man' then this is in a similar vein but very different at the same time.You have to see the film to know what I mean as it's a tricky one to describe. Frank Ifield is pretty striking and it's pretty obvious that this was intended to be his 'Good career move'up the showbiz ladder. Again, like the films I've compared this to we're in the 'No Longer Politically Correct' genre so you'll be VERY hard pressed to spy it on the box!!!!!!!! If you can get a copy of this you'll be impressed.Generally though, any film with Richard Wattis in seems to be a good bet!
Poor Frank Ifield - in his one and only film appearance, he gets himself landed with this total load of tosh! No wonder his cinematic career was doomed before it even began, as this movie must have been some sort of curse. The whole thing is a slipshod, jumble of scenes which bear no semblance of continuity whatsoever. The story, if there is one, is so difficult to follow as to become downright irritating after a short while, and the film makes no sense at all. It's such a pity, in many ways, as Frank Ifield comes across as quite an engaging personality, with a more than pleasant singing voice. Unfortunately, he is totally hamstrung by the appalling material in a film that goes nowhere, not very fast. A big, big disappointment all round.
As said it was Frank Fields only movie and possibly the end of his singing career too !!
Dreadful direction and production.
If it had the Carry On actors and their direction and production, then it may have been slightly tolerable..
Dreadful direction and production.
If it had the Carry On actors and their direction and production, then it may have been slightly tolerable..
Did you know
- TriviaSuzy Kendall receives an "introducing" credit
- GoofsLever, the music publisher in the trial at the end of the movie, asks Dave if he has anything to say before he (Lever) passes sentence. Lever then asks the jury if they have reached their verdict. A judge cannot pass sentence until after the jury state the defendant is guilty. However it can be said it wasn't an actual trial that Dave was subjected to.
- ConnectionsReferences Du rififi chez les hommes (1955)
- How long is Up Jumped a Swagman?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 29m(89 min)
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content