- Awards
- 22
Apparently, "sex workers" is now more respectful. "LonelyFools regents" is the preferred terminology.
-
There's plenty of time to choose your spooky October username
Click here for more details
What was the last film you watched?
- Thread starter Mel O'Drama
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
Apparently, "sex workers" is now more respectful. "LonelyFools regents" is the preferred terminology.
- Awards
- 27
Then I'd choose "erotic entertainers".
Seriously, there is nothing respectful about prostitution or porn (action or solo).
I don't condemn it, not all, and I'm glad people want to do that kind of thing. "Whore" is my #1 favourite word and now I can't use it anymore?
Those websites make it all dangerously accessible for stupid young people (mostly gays, of course).
They don't understand that that stuff never goes away. Never. Thank god it wasn't available when I was young.
"Hitman" sounds kinda crass, maybe we should change it to "problem fixer".
And President of the USA should be "Sugar Daddy", to make it sound less villainous.
So offensive. It should be banned.
- Awards
- 53
As @Snarky Oracle! mentioned, "sex worker" is the more widely accepted term used today. It's less derogatory and is their preferred way of describing what they do. Hearing them being described as "prostitutes" in the film, although historically accurate, was a bit grating.
- Awards
- 27
Gee, it was still historically accurate to me until I read your post. Time flies, doesn't it.
- Awards
- 24
- Awards
- 53
Straw (2025)
A tense thriller about a single mother whose life unravels over a single day following a series of crises: job loss, eviction, her daughter’s worsening illness. Her desperation to get her paycheque for her last work shift and to get it cashed so she can pay for her daughter's school meals spirals into a hostage situation at a bank. A interesting study of how desperate circumstances can lead a good person to do bad things. I wasn't entirely convinced of the twist at the end but a very good film nonetheless.
A tense thriller about a single mother whose life unravels over a single day following a series of crises: job loss, eviction, her daughter’s worsening illness. Her desperation to get her paycheque for her last work shift and to get it cashed so she can pay for her daughter's school meals spirals into a hostage situation at a bank. A interesting study of how desperate circumstances can lead a good person to do bad things. I wasn't entirely convinced of the twist at the end but a very good film nonetheless.
- Awards
- 27
TAXI ZUM KLO (1980)
Have I really watched it when it was shown on Dutch television in the 1980s, or was I only aware of the buzz it's created?
Surely I would recognise the pornographic performances (not necessarily in detail) and it's very unlikely that we got a censored version, if only because we would never give the Germans the satisfaction that their films were too outrageous for the Dutch public.
Similar to Caligula it brings hardcore sex into mainstream cinema except that those scenes in TAXI are played by the cast, not the porn-extras as it happened in that other film.
If I'd only consider the film from this point of view then I guess it could be the most progressive gay film (that isn't a porn film) ever made.
But apart from the "ooh! & aah!" it doesn't have much to say, and the story unfolds like a documentary style look in to the life of the closeted male teacher/reckless cruiser by night.
That's still enough, or maybe plenty, for a good filmmaker to sink his teeth into the taboo subject, but Frank Ripploh was not one those filmmakers.
The best part is the dialogue: it's accessible and hasn't aged very much. There's no need for "historical" translations.
Everything else in the film looks rather aimless and that would be great if aimlessness was the point of the story, if it was meant to say something about the characters or the conditions they lived in, but the compilation of meandering scenes makes it hard work for the viewer.
I believe it's also supposed to be a gay comedy but I failed to see how, and I understand enough of the German language to be sure that nothing got lost in translation.
Nevertheless, there are a few Mike Leigh-esque scenes that amused me.
We hear a woman calling a radio station and she asks if the fluorescent disco motifs on her daughter's sweater could produce hazardous radiation.
Since this isn't something that would concern the average housewife (sorry, I mean domestic worker) we can assume that the 1980 media had raised awareness of the radiation issue.
In a scene between the protagonist and his female co-worker he compliments her on her pricey-looking furniture ("yes, well, I had to save up a bit") and the matching colour pattern in the curtains and lamp shades also does not go unnoticed.
There are a few practical jokes like being unintentionally locked out (naked, of course) so he has to enter his flat via the neighbour's balcony. Running out of toilet paper...that kind of cliché stuff.
It's perfectly fine if Frank Ripploh wants to show us a part of his life, but it needs more and better dramatisation especially since the events aren't terribly fascinating to begin with. But it's gay, yes it's definitely gay.
Have I really watched it when it was shown on Dutch television in the 1980s, or was I only aware of the buzz it's created?
Surely I would recognise the pornographic performances (not necessarily in detail) and it's very unlikely that we got a censored version, if only because we would never give the Germans the satisfaction that their films were too outrageous for the Dutch public.
Similar to Caligula it brings hardcore sex into mainstream cinema except that those scenes in TAXI are played by the cast, not the porn-extras as it happened in that other film.
If I'd only consider the film from this point of view then I guess it could be the most progressive gay film (that isn't a porn film) ever made.
But apart from the "ooh! & aah!" it doesn't have much to say, and the story unfolds like a documentary style look in to the life of the closeted male teacher/reckless cruiser by night.
That's still enough, or maybe plenty, for a good filmmaker to sink his teeth into the taboo subject, but Frank Ripploh was not one those filmmakers.
The best part is the dialogue: it's accessible and hasn't aged very much. There's no need for "historical" translations.
Everything else in the film looks rather aimless and that would be great if aimlessness was the point of the story, if it was meant to say something about the characters or the conditions they lived in, but the compilation of meandering scenes makes it hard work for the viewer.
I believe it's also supposed to be a gay comedy but I failed to see how, and I understand enough of the German language to be sure that nothing got lost in translation.
Nevertheless, there are a few Mike Leigh-esque scenes that amused me.
We hear a woman calling a radio station and she asks if the fluorescent disco motifs on her daughter's sweater could produce hazardous radiation.
Since this isn't something that would concern the average housewife (sorry, I mean domestic worker) we can assume that the 1980 media had raised awareness of the radiation issue.
In a scene between the protagonist and his female co-worker he compliments her on her pricey-looking furniture ("yes, well, I had to save up a bit") and the matching colour pattern in the curtains and lamp shades also does not go unnoticed.
There are a few practical jokes like being unintentionally locked out (naked, of course) so he has to enter his flat via the neighbour's balcony. Running out of toilet paper...that kind of cliché stuff.
It's perfectly fine if Frank Ripploh wants to show us a part of his life, but it needs more and better dramatisation especially since the events aren't terribly fascinating to begin with. But it's gay, yes it's definitely gay.
- Awards
- 27
CHRISTIANE F. (1981)
I vividly remember our schoolyard talk about this allegedly shocking film, and it also got quite some coverage in the media. Perhaps it was impossible not to know of this film and yet I've never been tempted or compelled to watch it, until yesterday.
The most likely scenario is that another shocking thing happened (my discovery of soap operas?) and Christiane F. faded into the background.
I may as well confess that TAXI & F. was an intentional double bill feature combo DVD purchase (not released in the same package, thankfully).
I had prepared myself for a few or a lot cringe-moments - and I'd do exactly the same if it were a Dutch film - but I was surprised to see how very well made it is.
The only thing that proved to be a minor challenge was to mentally adjust myself to the film's setting. Christiane's story starts in 1976 but I've always thought of it as an early 1980s film.
I wondered if they had made an effort to capture the look of mid-seventies Germany but that became an exhausting exercise and after a while I decided to watch it "as is". It's not as if Christiane's ordeal couldn't have happened in 1980 or 1981.
The most significant reminder is probably the music and the nightlife entertainment, although I'm sure that the (what would become the) more traditional discothèques already existed. Boney M's Baby, Do You Wanna Bump was released in 1975 but Christiane just happened to be a David Bowie fan.
Anyway, I just wanted to highlight how difficult it can be to produce or to enjoy "period drama" when that period only represents a few years or just one decade.
Had the story been completely scripted then I'd struggle to believe that 13 y/o children were allowed to take the evening train to downtown clubland and come home whenever they felt like it.
But I didn't grow up in a big city and I don't come from a dysfunctional family, and I was not a girl.
The appeal of the underground scene and all the freedom that goes with it is self-explanatory. It even reminded me of a scene from TAXI ZUM KLO in which the gay teacher asks his pupils to act out the one thing they like to do most. Fighting, swearing, ruin their clothes with a pair of scissors - in other words: Pinocchio's Bad Boys Land.
Even I have experienced something similar in nursery school. Kids love chaos and it already starts there.
As for "drugs is bad and this is what could happen to you" it seems irrational to expect any big surprises, and we already know that the protagonist has managed to escape it all.
What makes this film so great is that it looks like a sci-fi/dystopian Night Of The Living Dead (or a better Blade Runner).
Citizens watch in horror how another group of citizens fall victim to a self-inflicted epidemic.
I wouldn't say that the film is unwatchably gritty, it never reaches the level of gore as seen in the opening scene of Withnail & I. Now that was hard to watch.
It's more like a predecessor to Trainspotting, minus the psychedelic effects.
Oh, and then there's Christiane's whoring little boyfriend Detlef played by Thomas Haustein. His only acting role, apparently.
He reminds me of the many inexplicably handsome and adorable guys I saw or knew in the early 80s (although the class group photographs in my photo album strongly suggests the opposite).
The thing is, beauty and sex and being in love never feels as strong as during those adolescent years. It's the unstoppable force of development, discovery, awareness and confrontation rolled into one. It's quite cruel, actually, and should not be dismissed as an insignificant crush.
Detlef is constantly fighting the gravity of his bangs, and combined with his broody and "unavailable" appearance it makes him look otherworldly attractive. "If Alain Delon and Tobey Maguire had a baby".....something like that.
CHRISTIANE F. was a very nostalgic and very satisfying experience, and David Bowie sang Heroes in German language. I can't ask for more.
I vividly remember our schoolyard talk about this allegedly shocking film, and it also got quite some coverage in the media. Perhaps it was impossible not to know of this film and yet I've never been tempted or compelled to watch it, until yesterday.
The most likely scenario is that another shocking thing happened (my discovery of soap operas?) and Christiane F. faded into the background.
I may as well confess that TAXI & F. was an intentional double bill feature combo DVD purchase (not released in the same package, thankfully).
I had prepared myself for a few or a lot cringe-moments - and I'd do exactly the same if it were a Dutch film - but I was surprised to see how very well made it is.
The only thing that proved to be a minor challenge was to mentally adjust myself to the film's setting. Christiane's story starts in 1976 but I've always thought of it as an early 1980s film.
I wondered if they had made an effort to capture the look of mid-seventies Germany but that became an exhausting exercise and after a while I decided to watch it "as is". It's not as if Christiane's ordeal couldn't have happened in 1980 or 1981.
The most significant reminder is probably the music and the nightlife entertainment, although I'm sure that the (what would become the) more traditional discothèques already existed. Boney M's Baby, Do You Wanna Bump was released in 1975 but Christiane just happened to be a David Bowie fan.
Anyway, I just wanted to highlight how difficult it can be to produce or to enjoy "period drama" when that period only represents a few years or just one decade.
Had the story been completely scripted then I'd struggle to believe that 13 y/o children were allowed to take the evening train to downtown clubland and come home whenever they felt like it.
But I didn't grow up in a big city and I don't come from a dysfunctional family, and I was not a girl.
The appeal of the underground scene and all the freedom that goes with it is self-explanatory. It even reminded me of a scene from TAXI ZUM KLO in which the gay teacher asks his pupils to act out the one thing they like to do most. Fighting, swearing, ruin their clothes with a pair of scissors - in other words: Pinocchio's Bad Boys Land.
Even I have experienced something similar in nursery school. Kids love chaos and it already starts there.
As for "drugs is bad and this is what could happen to you" it seems irrational to expect any big surprises, and we already know that the protagonist has managed to escape it all.
What makes this film so great is that it looks like a sci-fi/dystopian Night Of The Living Dead (or a better Blade Runner).
Citizens watch in horror how another group of citizens fall victim to a self-inflicted epidemic.
I wouldn't say that the film is unwatchably gritty, it never reaches the level of gore as seen in the opening scene of Withnail & I. Now that was hard to watch.
It's more like a predecessor to Trainspotting, minus the psychedelic effects.
Oh, and then there's Christiane's whoring little boyfriend Detlef played by Thomas Haustein. His only acting role, apparently.
He reminds me of the many inexplicably handsome and adorable guys I saw or knew in the early 80s (although the class group photographs in my photo album strongly suggests the opposite).
The thing is, beauty and sex and being in love never feels as strong as during those adolescent years. It's the unstoppable force of development, discovery, awareness and confrontation rolled into one. It's quite cruel, actually, and should not be dismissed as an insignificant crush.
Detlef is constantly fighting the gravity of his bangs, and combined with his broody and "unavailable" appearance it makes him look otherworldly attractive. "If Alain Delon and Tobey Maguire had a baby".....something like that.
CHRISTIANE F. was a very nostalgic and very satisfying experience, and David Bowie sang Heroes in German language. I can't ask for more.
- Awards
- 21
The Breakfast Club (1985)
Another of those "classics" that I've never seen before.
I don't think I was ever in the demographic that this film seems intended to reach but it's compelling enough, even if the characters are a bit stereotypical - albeit in a self-aware kind of way.
Another of those "classics" that I've never seen before.
I don't think I was ever in the demographic that this film seems intended to reach but it's compelling enough, even if the characters are a bit stereotypical - albeit in a self-aware kind of way.
- Awards
- 27
LET HIM GO (2020)
A perfect little old-fashioned melodrama featuring great performances from the main actors, plus a "Darlene Snell" type of villainess, plus a sexy-brooding Indian.
A perfect little old-fashioned melodrama featuring great performances from the main actors, plus a "Darlene Snell" type of villainess, plus a sexy-brooding Indian.
- Awards
- 27
GASLIGHT '40 vs. GASLIGHT '44
I accidentally watched the original on you-know-where because I assumed it was the more well-known version. I enjoyed it very much and straight afterwards I rented the remake from Prime.
Technically speaking the remake is better (no surprise there, I suppose) but not in a way that benefits the story.
Charles Boyer is more convincing as the Eurotrash criminal except that it doesn't really matter if the villain is Eurotrash or not.
Ingrid Bergman's character is more generous with the histrionics as is to be expected in that kind of situation, but it doesn't necessarily make the situation look more believable.
The remake does more, like adding an intentional quirky character and showing more scenery, but nothing about that felt like an improvement on the original.
The humour in GASLIGHT '40 feels casually/naturally added to the scenes.
The very irritated piano player.
The final scene, desperately holding on to his precious rubies.
To summarise the ongoing global feud between the two different GASLIGHT fanboys: it's a choice between Ingrid Bergman and Anton Walbrook.
It goes without saying that Ingrid Bergman does a great job in this film and the many other films she's made, but Anton Walbrook is simply the bigger GASLIGHT powerhouse.
The story is not a mystery, it's clear from the very beginning what's going on and I think that makes it more fun to be "in cahoots" with the villain.
Unlike Charles Boyer's character, Walbrook plays the gaslighter so Dickensian evil that it almost becomes sexually attractive.
Even when he pays his wife a compliment ("you look lovely tonight") it sounds like a cruel insult.
The sets are a bit smaller and crammed with stuff (I LOVE the pampas plume decoration) but it intensifies the terror of "what happens behind closed doors".
The deviousness of the maid happens more unexpectedly but Angela Lansbury plays it equally entertaining.
All things considered, the British GASLIGHT is the best.
I accidentally watched the original on you-know-where because I assumed it was the more well-known version. I enjoyed it very much and straight afterwards I rented the remake from Prime.
Technically speaking the remake is better (no surprise there, I suppose) but not in a way that benefits the story.
Charles Boyer is more convincing as the Eurotrash criminal except that it doesn't really matter if the villain is Eurotrash or not.
Ingrid Bergman's character is more generous with the histrionics as is to be expected in that kind of situation, but it doesn't necessarily make the situation look more believable.
The remake does more, like adding an intentional quirky character and showing more scenery, but nothing about that felt like an improvement on the original.
The humour in GASLIGHT '40 feels casually/naturally added to the scenes.
Without a whiff of sarcasm:
The very irritated piano player.
The final scene, desperately holding on to his precious rubies.
To summarise the ongoing global feud between the two different GASLIGHT fanboys: it's a choice between Ingrid Bergman and Anton Walbrook.
It goes without saying that Ingrid Bergman does a great job in this film and the many other films she's made, but Anton Walbrook is simply the bigger GASLIGHT powerhouse.
The story is not a mystery, it's clear from the very beginning what's going on and I think that makes it more fun to be "in cahoots" with the villain.
Unlike Charles Boyer's character, Walbrook plays the gaslighter so Dickensian evil that it almost becomes sexually attractive.
Even when he pays his wife a compliment ("you look lovely tonight") it sounds like a cruel insult.
The sets are a bit smaller and crammed with stuff (I LOVE the pampas plume decoration) but it intensifies the terror of "what happens behind closed doors".
The deviousness of the maid happens more unexpectedly but Angela Lansbury plays it equally entertaining.
All things considered, the British GASLIGHT is the best.
- Awards
- 22
Yes, I bought a set with both versions for my increasingly-elderly parents. They watched them repeatedly.
I'm afraid it might've killed them.
- Awards
- 24
Now I want to see the original GASLIGHT! In Spain the Bergman one was retitled "Luz que agoniza" (Light in agony) more poetically, I guess, though the Franco censors had nothing remotely poetic in their obscure minds...
This is, very likely, the oldest Spanish "program"
for the movie (you know, what we were given at
the theatre for FREE, not that I can remember it).
- Awards
- 11
The wife and I decided to watch some of those old, sometimes cheesy, sometimes better than one might think horror movies with animals as the primary antagonist. We've been in this groove for the last three or four weeks.
So far, we've watched:
ALLIGATOR (1980)
ALLIGATOR II: THE MUTATION (1991)
GRIZZLY (1976)
DAY OF THE ANIMALS (1977)
ORCA (1977)
These movies have varied in quality, but I'd argue that each of them have done a good job at ironing out their own viewpoint and train of thought.
I was particularly fond of the tongue-in-cheek vibe of ALLIGATOR, although I didn't like that they had a small kid eaten by the title killer in a swimming pool.
ALLIGATOR II was probably stronger than the original in some areas, but it had a dud of a finale, which left us feeling underwhelmed and a little cheated.
GRIZZLY was straight slasher, but with a grizzly bear as the killer instead of a man with a knife. It honestly reminded me a lot of the original HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13th, even if it predates both of those genre-starting slashers.
DAYS OF THE ANIMALS might've had the simplest, but creepiest premise of everyday people participating in a family-friendly hike, only to have their adventure ruined by animals. It got sloppy, though, and lost its direction quickly.
ORCA is probably the best of the batch we've watched so far. Sure, the story of an Orca taking revenge on a seaman is a little "out there", but the production values and performances were good. One YouTuber calls ORCA "the best JAWS ripoff", but that's up to debate.
Of course, I wouldn't say any of these movies make any statement. Nearly all of them know exactly what they are -- cheesey horror -- and they ride right into that full force.
We enjoyed the ride, though.
So far, we've watched:
ALLIGATOR (1980)
ALLIGATOR II: THE MUTATION (1991)
GRIZZLY (1976)
DAY OF THE ANIMALS (1977)
ORCA (1977)
These movies have varied in quality, but I'd argue that each of them have done a good job at ironing out their own viewpoint and train of thought.
I was particularly fond of the tongue-in-cheek vibe of ALLIGATOR, although I didn't like that they had a small kid eaten by the title killer in a swimming pool.
ALLIGATOR II was probably stronger than the original in some areas, but it had a dud of a finale, which left us feeling underwhelmed and a little cheated.
GRIZZLY was straight slasher, but with a grizzly bear as the killer instead of a man with a knife. It honestly reminded me a lot of the original HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13th, even if it predates both of those genre-starting slashers.
DAYS OF THE ANIMALS might've had the simplest, but creepiest premise of everyday people participating in a family-friendly hike, only to have their adventure ruined by animals. It got sloppy, though, and lost its direction quickly.
ORCA is probably the best of the batch we've watched so far. Sure, the story of an Orca taking revenge on a seaman is a little "out there", but the production values and performances were good. One YouTuber calls ORCA "the best JAWS ripoff", but that's up to debate.
Of course, I wouldn't say any of these movies make any statement. Nearly all of them know exactly what they are -- cheesey horror -- and they ride right into that full force.
We enjoyed the ride, though.
- Awards
- 24
I watched "Empire Records" a couple of nights ago. I expected nothing, so I did enjoy it a lot. It´s a sort of perfect companion to "Reality Bites" and "Heathers": a group of rebellious teenagers let their emotions go and have fun while facing the consequences.
Liv Tyler and Renée Zellweger are here in their, what? early twenties? Renée is super-thin and cute, and plays the b*tch, and Liv is the virgin who wants to be Renée but deep inside, is the most romantic of all. The story happens in 24 hours, and it´s truly entertaining and unwillingly sweet. It´s a derivative of the "let´s save this business" trope, but totally works.
Among the other cast-members are others who went on to (or came from) better things: Anthony LaPaglia ("Whithout a Trace"), Rory Cochrane (the best of the ensemble, and the cutest too), Robin Tunney ("Prison Break", wearing a Sinéad O´Connor look), Ethan Embry (later memorable in "Grace & Frankie"), Johnny Whitworth ("CSI: Miami"), and last but not least, actually the very least of all, is Miles Colby, who plays here a parody of one of those flamboyant heartthrobs of the 90s, very tanned, stupid and narcissistic (as in "The Colbys"...).
Highly recommendable if you wanna watch something fun with a message of love for life underneath.
Note: Don´t watch the trailer or you´ll get some spoilers...
Liv Tyler and Renée Zellweger are here in their, what? early twenties? Renée is super-thin and cute, and plays the b*tch, and Liv is the virgin who wants to be Renée but deep inside, is the most romantic of all. The story happens in 24 hours, and it´s truly entertaining and unwillingly sweet. It´s a derivative of the "let´s save this business" trope, but totally works.
Among the other cast-members are others who went on to (or came from) better things: Anthony LaPaglia ("Whithout a Trace"), Rory Cochrane (the best of the ensemble, and the cutest too), Robin Tunney ("Prison Break", wearing a Sinéad O´Connor look), Ethan Embry (later memorable in "Grace & Frankie"), Johnny Whitworth ("CSI: Miami"), and last but not least, actually the very least of all, is Miles Colby, who plays here a parody of one of those flamboyant heartthrobs of the 90s, very tanned, stupid and narcissistic (as in "The Colbys"...).
Highly recommendable if you wanna watch something fun with a message of love for life underneath.
Note: Don´t watch the trailer or you´ll get some spoilers...
Last edited:
- Awards
- 11
Keenan Wynn is also in ORCA.
- Awards
- 21
This was on TV over the weekend. I found it an enjoyable update to the story and did notice that they managed to avoid the word "dwarf" altogether - even the subtitles identified them only as "miners".
I liked how they fixed what I've long thought to be the flaw in the original story - the fact that with her father dead Snow White was the rightful queen of her own kingdom. Instead of riding off with the prince, he should stay as her consort - which is effectively what happens here.
- Awards
- 44
The Knack... And How To Get It (1965)
One of those films that I've always known only by its (fairly self explanatory) name. Beyond that I've never explored, though I'm sure over the years I'll have seen its name associated with certain actors.
Seeing Richard Lester's name in the credits gave me mixed feelings. I know his Sixties vehicles include those Beatles films but - never having seen those - my mind instantly goes to him ruining the tone of the Superman film series with an overload of quick and "comedy". Still, I made peace with continuing by telling myself this film was billed as an actual comedy anyway.
Given the director, the time in which it was made and the cast, I was expecting it to be zany and a little weird in a Swinging Sixties kind of way, and it certainly was that. This is not a film I could sit down and watch most of the time. I feel I would have to specifically want a hit of Sixties surrealism. It feels very experimental in tone, from fourth wall breaking to a character who paints everything white (including the window panes in a room he's already treated) to a scene in which Michael Crawford's character gets stuck in a loop of repeatedly running down a flight of stairs and closing a door whilst repeating the same phrase.
Speaking of repeating words, there's that prolonged sequence in which Rita Tushingham's character - having been on the receiving end of Ray Brooks's sexual advances - has fainted and comes round apparently convinced she's been raped. For the next five to ten minutes, the only word she utters is "rape", and each time she does so it's in a different tone or volume. She shouts it, stammers it, whispers it and even sings it. She disturbs people in the street to say it and knocks on doors to say it ("not today", says the old woman who answers). It's played mostly for laughs, which is telling of the wide gap between 1960s and 2020s sensibilities. At the same time, it arguably foreshadows the 21st Century with Swinging London representing the freedoms of social media and with her character wanting to fit into sub-movements that are part of this new world, even if she does so inauthentically. At times it seems she doesn't actually believe her own claims, but is getting back at the men (plural, since her accusations shift from one to another) with a false allegation. After one cry draws a particularly large number of people's horrified attention, she throws a victorious look at the men she's accused and contorts her features up into a kind of "nyaah nyaah" face. Where things diverge is that in Sixties Britain, the men (and, apparently the writers) decide that her accusations are driven by a fantasy for which the cure is a good seeing to. A definite sign of the times.
There is a darkness to the characters' behaviour which is acknowledged. Brooks's lothario swooping in and "dominating" women with his seduction techniques is watched with some horror by his housemates, and his actions seem all the seedier because of the wide-eyed innocence of both Crawford and Tushingham's characters. In a way, Brooks is playing the pantomime villain, with the viewer rooting for the two innocents to find their happy ending.
Above all else, this is a nice little time capsule of Sixties London. The streetscapes - the cars, clothes and telephone boxes - look charming, quaint and inviting.
As for the cast: Rita Tushingham is at her most winsome. Ray Brooks is really interesting casting for the roué character. He's not classically handsome, nor does he radiate blinding amounts of sexual energy. But there's just something about him that makes me believe it all. I've met men like him who objectively are rather ordinary but just have The Knack and are never short of a sexual partner or two.
Meanwhile Michael Crawford is already demonstrating the physicality for which he would go on to be renowned. He can be seen doing stunt after stunt here, from jumping off moving buses to falling down stairs. At one point, when he is pursuing Tushingham's character who has been whisked off on a motorbike by Brooks, the bike whizzes down an alley (or gully/ginnel/snicket/tenfoot). They whizz under the camera, then the camera pans up to show they have just gone under Crawford, who is wedged between the wall either side by his feet and shoulders, casually lying out and smoking a cigarette as though he is on a chaise longue rather than suspended in mid-air. It's a very memorable shot.
One of those films that I've always known only by its (fairly self explanatory) name. Beyond that I've never explored, though I'm sure over the years I'll have seen its name associated with certain actors.
Seeing Richard Lester's name in the credits gave me mixed feelings. I know his Sixties vehicles include those Beatles films but - never having seen those - my mind instantly goes to him ruining the tone of the Superman film series with an overload of quick and "comedy". Still, I made peace with continuing by telling myself this film was billed as an actual comedy anyway.
Given the director, the time in which it was made and the cast, I was expecting it to be zany and a little weird in a Swinging Sixties kind of way, and it certainly was that. This is not a film I could sit down and watch most of the time. I feel I would have to specifically want a hit of Sixties surrealism. It feels very experimental in tone, from fourth wall breaking to a character who paints everything white (including the window panes in a room he's already treated) to a scene in which Michael Crawford's character gets stuck in a loop of repeatedly running down a flight of stairs and closing a door whilst repeating the same phrase.
Speaking of repeating words, there's that prolonged sequence in which Rita Tushingham's character - having been on the receiving end of Ray Brooks's sexual advances - has fainted and comes round apparently convinced she's been raped. For the next five to ten minutes, the only word she utters is "rape", and each time she does so it's in a different tone or volume. She shouts it, stammers it, whispers it and even sings it. She disturbs people in the street to say it and knocks on doors to say it ("not today", says the old woman who answers). It's played mostly for laughs, which is telling of the wide gap between 1960s and 2020s sensibilities. At the same time, it arguably foreshadows the 21st Century with Swinging London representing the freedoms of social media and with her character wanting to fit into sub-movements that are part of this new world, even if she does so inauthentically. At times it seems she doesn't actually believe her own claims, but is getting back at the men (plural, since her accusations shift from one to another) with a false allegation. After one cry draws a particularly large number of people's horrified attention, she throws a victorious look at the men she's accused and contorts her features up into a kind of "nyaah nyaah" face. Where things diverge is that in Sixties Britain, the men (and, apparently the writers) decide that her accusations are driven by a fantasy for which the cure is a good seeing to. A definite sign of the times.
There is a darkness to the characters' behaviour which is acknowledged. Brooks's lothario swooping in and "dominating" women with his seduction techniques is watched with some horror by his housemates, and his actions seem all the seedier because of the wide-eyed innocence of both Crawford and Tushingham's characters. In a way, Brooks is playing the pantomime villain, with the viewer rooting for the two innocents to find their happy ending.
Above all else, this is a nice little time capsule of Sixties London. The streetscapes - the cars, clothes and telephone boxes - look charming, quaint and inviting.
As for the cast: Rita Tushingham is at her most winsome. Ray Brooks is really interesting casting for the roué character. He's not classically handsome, nor does he radiate blinding amounts of sexual energy. But there's just something about him that makes me believe it all. I've met men like him who objectively are rather ordinary but just have The Knack and are never short of a sexual partner or two.
Meanwhile Michael Crawford is already demonstrating the physicality for which he would go on to be renowned. He can be seen doing stunt after stunt here, from jumping off moving buses to falling down stairs. At one point, when he is pursuing Tushingham's character who has been whisked off on a motorbike by Brooks, the bike whizzes down an alley (or gully/ginnel/snicket/tenfoot). They whizz under the camera, then the camera pans up to show they have just gone under Crawford, who is wedged between the wall either side by his feet and shoulders, casually lying out and smoking a cigarette as though he is on a chaise longue rather than suspended in mid-air. It's a very memorable shot.
