IMDb RATING
6.3/10
3.8K
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
Storyline
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
Featured review
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.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Der gewisse Kniff
- 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 24 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was The Knack... and How to Get It (1965) officially released in India in English?
Answer