The Honeymooners

Having just watched this movie at its premier as part of the London Film Festival 2003, I have to say I came out being sorely disappointed.

The movie is basically a series of loosely coupled cinematic clichés stitched together in a rom-com template. First timer Karl Golden has mistakenly crammed too many tricks on to the screen, and the jarring jump-cuts, grainy stock and jerky camera movements are not innovative, merely annoying and nauseating. It is truly a sad indictment of the state of the British film industry when funding can be made available for predictable, plodding, saccharine nonsense like this at the expense of other more worthy projects.

What a treat! Saw this at the London Film Festival and laugh-out-loud loved it. Shot in under three weeks on a budget too low to be called shoestring, first time writer-director Karl Golden had previously only two short films on his imdb CV but has fashioned here a warm and witty romantic comedy that was enthusiastically applauded by the festival audience.

Essentially the story is another variation on the well-used rom-com staple of two people with apparently nothing in common finding themselves together in trying circumstances and gradually falling for each other. Nothing terribly groundbreaking there, but Golden's inventive, clever script provides a funny, entertaining and enjoyable journey even if the destination is no surprise.

To this viewer, The Honeymooners is an object lesson to those who pour millions into making glossy but strictly one-star pap. What really counts is a great script featuring believable and identifiable characters, and a talented cast to bring them to life.

Watched this for the first time last night.

For the first few minutes the shaking camera will get on your nerves but after a while you start to feel as if you are standing there watching the people yourself.

Plot revolves around a man just jilted at the church and a waitress he pays to drive him to Donegal. He is less than endeering - obviously will not let himself be happy about his new found situation. She is far easier to warm to, but has a habit of saying hurtful things at just the right moment. Both actors are quite believable in their roles and the writing for the minor roles keeps the whole thing quite realistic. At times I could identify with both leads, at times they both p-ed me off - quite realistic. (Also found the girl - Alex Reid - quite attractive, thats just me I suppose.)

Its a rom-com, but the gentle pace makes it stand out a bit from the others - quiet, and thoughtful, and funny. Just what I was looking for in a movie last night, as it happens.

Don't expect too much from this movie and you should enjoy it 8/10 as a rom-com.

I really enjoyed this movie. It kept me interested throughout and I liked the two leads especially Alex, really nice. I'm sure we'll see more of her in the future. I also liked the use of facial expressions and body language in some scenes instead of dialogue, it added to the atmosphere and told me more about the characters. Some good characters in the Donegal scenes which were very funny. I am grateful to the Sunday Times for this freebie as I had heard about the movie and of course it would never feature in a local cinema. By the way there are lots of big budget movies with plenty of $ and hype that don't come near this little gem despite the shaky camera-work.

Aidan

This film (which was shot on video, by the way) is rather low quality. Someone should tell the director spend some money and buy a tripod. As far as I know, EVERY shot was hand held. Some at high magnification. Lots of moving back and forth. So, apart from that dread feeling when you realise within 90 seconds that your money has been wasted, and that do I or don't I walk out of the cinema, what has the film got to offer? Not much. A storyline that could be written by a teenager. The script that well, sucks. Probably penned in a day, maybe an afternoon. The acting, well some of it was OK. But some of it was useless.

When I first realised the quality of this film, I wondered whether it was a form of self-parody. Sort of like a straight-A student intentionally flunking an entry-level exam. And this may be the case, I don't know. But if it isn't, would the director be embarrassed by his creation? probably.

If you've got 90 minutes to kill, and nothing better is on television, give it a go. But please don't actually spend money on this film. It makes me sad that I could have fed a 3rd world person for a week for the money that it cost me to go.