56 reviews
A fun musical with a lot of energy and great acting, 'Absolute Beginners' will win a place in your heart. This is the sharpest I've seen Bowie in a film, and Patsy Kensit was beautiful as Suzette. A political piece as well as a time piece, Temple captured the feel of a Broadway or West End musical perfectly. A great turnaround for Temple, who really had me worried after directing 'Mantrap'. It is a musical, so liberties have to be allowed, but for fans of the musical this is a great one to check out. Rating: 27/40
- christophaskell
- Sep 5, 2003
- Permalink
Julien Temple's extravagant musical adaptation of the classic Colin MacInnes novel never reached the audience it deserved, but it could be that filmgoers of the 1980's weren't ready for the breathless bravado of Temple's vision. A hyped-up take on the classic Freed Unit musicals at MGM, with a rock/jazz score featuring David Bowie, Sade, Gil Evans, Slim Gaillard and other notables, this movie is a visual feast and a treat for the ears as well.
Sadly, you have to hope for a theatrical screening to take in the extraordinary cinematography (there's an opening extended-take through the crowded streets of London that rivals the opening of "Touch of Evil" in complexity and beauty) because there has never been a letterbox release of the film on video or disc. Where's the DVD with a Temple commentary?
Sadly, you have to hope for a theatrical screening to take in the extraordinary cinematography (there's an opening extended-take through the crowded streets of London that rivals the opening of "Touch of Evil" in complexity and beauty) because there has never been a letterbox release of the film on video or disc. Where's the DVD with a Temple commentary?
The main attraction here is the score, which features the title song and "That's Motivation," performed and composed by rock icon David Bowie, as well as his version of the classic "Volare." In addition, you get "Killer Blow" performed by Sade and jazz tunes by Charles Mingus and Miles Davis performed by Gil Evans. This movie makes you believe that is David Bowie had been performing in the 1930s he would have been a sensation then too.
- LeonardKniffel
- Apr 30, 2020
- Permalink
Following the disasterous Revolution, this film was pretty much the final nail in the coffin of Goldcrest and thus the British Film Industry. The film is absolute pants, it's full of music from the attempted mid-80's jazz revival and based on a book & author that was briefly popular at that time and has deservedly sank back into obscurity. Temple searched for ages trying to find Suzette and came up with 8th Wonders Patsy Kensett another person who was briefly popular at the time. By the time the film came out of post production the Jazz revival was over, as was Kensett's career and the film met a totally uncaring film public.
Mediocre would be an overstatement for some of the worst/campest/cheesiest acting to ever grace the British silver screen watching it almost 20 years on and the film is truely cringeworthy.
Mediocre would be an overstatement for some of the worst/campest/cheesiest acting to ever grace the British silver screen watching it almost 20 years on and the film is truely cringeworthy.
- SpotMonkee
- Sep 14, 2019
- Permalink
I appreciate a good musical, however, this film was a narrow miss for me when I first saw it - though I really wanted to like it. After watching the blu-ray release 30 years later, I'm afraid I can't imagine why I ever thought I liked it at all. No doubt a good-looking picture with candy-color saturated sets and costumes but that's where its appeal ends. Mostly forgettable songs, and production values that worked well for short format music videos are all too much for one to endure as a 2 hour feature. The rushed, often cringe-inducing dialog, sloppy overdubbing, endless jump-cuts, even the claustrophobic framing are unsettling enough to inspire angst in anyone. There's something odd about the timing, pacing, and overall flow that feels so foreign and unnatural - like watching a really long television commercial. In any case, this is not an enjoyable film. A 1950's story trapped in a 1980's medium. Hopelessly dated.
- davet1081-964-976110
- Aug 15, 2015
- Permalink
- davidhlynch
- Apr 23, 2006
- Permalink
In 1958, aspiring photographer Colin is photographing the hip London scene. He loves model Crepe Suzette (Patsy Kensit) who is only interested in gaining fame. She crashes the catwalk of old style fashion designer Henley of Mayfair (James Fox) who is forced to appropriate her wild antics as his own creation. Colin befriends society king Vendice Partners (David Bowie).
The lead has no charisma. He needs some boyish charms. Without it, the movie struggles with a hole at its center. His character doesn't even like the world in his pictures and the audience returns the favor. He has a big overturning-the-tables turn and the movie tries to sell it as rebelling against the establishment. The problem is that I don't think he likes the alternative either. His character doesn't seem to like anything. He's a grumpy teenager. I waited a long time for David Bowie to show up but even his star power cannot save this. Quite frankly, this should be his movie, not the kid. He's the most interesting performer. Kensit is fine but she's just an object. The production is uneven with some stagey production while other parts are fake realism. It's both too glossy and too grimy at the same time. I don't mind the fake stage reality but it's an awkward mix. As a musical, it does have one great David Bowie song but otherwise, it is uneven as the actors do their own singing. Sade is a nightclub singer and that's fun. It's an uneven mix. The subject matter also gets uneven while dealing with some serious racial matters as well as fake fame issues. Other successful musicals have done the mix much better but this one struggles. This is a British flop. I don't know much about it. It came and went without much notice across the pond. At least, it's an interesting flop.
The lead has no charisma. He needs some boyish charms. Without it, the movie struggles with a hole at its center. His character doesn't even like the world in his pictures and the audience returns the favor. He has a big overturning-the-tables turn and the movie tries to sell it as rebelling against the establishment. The problem is that I don't think he likes the alternative either. His character doesn't seem to like anything. He's a grumpy teenager. I waited a long time for David Bowie to show up but even his star power cannot save this. Quite frankly, this should be his movie, not the kid. He's the most interesting performer. Kensit is fine but she's just an object. The production is uneven with some stagey production while other parts are fake realism. It's both too glossy and too grimy at the same time. I don't mind the fake stage reality but it's an awkward mix. As a musical, it does have one great David Bowie song but otherwise, it is uneven as the actors do their own singing. Sade is a nightclub singer and that's fun. It's an uneven mix. The subject matter also gets uneven while dealing with some serious racial matters as well as fake fame issues. Other successful musicals have done the mix much better but this one struggles. This is a British flop. I don't know much about it. It came and went without much notice across the pond. At least, it's an interesting flop.
- SnoopyStyle
- May 21, 2021
- Permalink
- Irishchatter
- Jan 11, 2016
- Permalink
Given the superb, gritty 1959 novel and the potential of a wonderful rock 'n' roll/modern jazz soundtrack, the film from the truly dire 1980s has my vote for the worst film of all time. The novel's inspiration appears to begin and end with the title, as wonderful potential scene after wonderful potential scene is simply replaced by an extended pop video from the worst era for pop music. The saddest thing of all is that the wonderful novel had never been filmed before (either on television or at the cinema) and this dire effort has probably put paid forever of an adaption of such a sensational book. The author would have hated it and anyone remotely involved in this film's making should be (a) thoroughly ashamed of themselves and (b) are completely deserving of the 1980s.
I had just graduated high school(in California) when this movie came out, in the summer of 1986. Given the heavy promotion given it by MTV(I believe they had a contest whose winner would appear in the film, though I may have remembered that wrong), and given that David Bowie, whose music career was on the upswing, had a starring role(along with a mix of musicians like veteran Ray Davies(of the Kinks) and newcomer Sade), you'd expect the movie would be a hit. Instead, it barely made a dent in America(in their year-end issue, Rolling Stone called it one of the hype jobs of the year), and seems to have been largely forgotten(though in an interview with Rolling Stone about a year later, Bowie claimed it was a cult hit). In fact, while star Patsy Kensit has had an erratic career, Bowie continued to make music and the occasional movie, and director Julien Temple, after this and EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY, went back to his forte, music videos, it's sort of ironic that the most successful person to come from that movie is Robbie Coltrane(TV's CRACKER), who only had a small role here.
Why am I boring you all with this? Because ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS is one of the unsung classics of the 80's. Of course, having grown up on old-time musicals(my dad was a fan), I'm probably more receptive to them than the average person seems to be today, but this is one of the best ones of the last two decades. Not only are all the numbers well-written and well sung(in addition to Bowie, Davies, and Sade, jazz great Gil Evans wrote the instrumental score, and Style Council contributes a song. Also, female lead Patsy Kensit sings one, while male lead Eddie O'Connell lip-syncs his numbers), they're also imaginatively staged. A good example is "Motivation," one of two numbers Bowie sings(the other being the title song), which includes parodies of Busby Berkley-type numbers. There's also a wicked parody of teen pop.
As for the story, Temple has the fine novel to fall back on(by Colin MacInnes), and while there's probably too many ideas trying to burst out(teen alienation, racism, "Selling Out"(the name of another song), he juggles them all with finesse. And the cast handles things with aplomb, with the exception of, surprisingly, Bowie; while he's appropriately super-smooth as the oily executive, his voice(intended to be an American accent?) is annoying. But O'Connell and Kensit are both fresh and appealing, Anita Morris and James Fox both play well in their typecast roles(as, respectively, a sexpot gossip columnist and an effete fashion designer), there's a nice turn by Mandy Rice-Davies(who, you may remember, was in real life involved in the Profumo scandal), and a host of others in small but memorable parts(the ones I can remember are Steven Berkoff(BEVERLY HILLS COP) and Bruce Payne(PASSENGER 57) as fascists, and Paul Rhys(VINCENT AND THEO) as a mod). All in all, well worth tracking down.
Why am I boring you all with this? Because ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS is one of the unsung classics of the 80's. Of course, having grown up on old-time musicals(my dad was a fan), I'm probably more receptive to them than the average person seems to be today, but this is one of the best ones of the last two decades. Not only are all the numbers well-written and well sung(in addition to Bowie, Davies, and Sade, jazz great Gil Evans wrote the instrumental score, and Style Council contributes a song. Also, female lead Patsy Kensit sings one, while male lead Eddie O'Connell lip-syncs his numbers), they're also imaginatively staged. A good example is "Motivation," one of two numbers Bowie sings(the other being the title song), which includes parodies of Busby Berkley-type numbers. There's also a wicked parody of teen pop.
As for the story, Temple has the fine novel to fall back on(by Colin MacInnes), and while there's probably too many ideas trying to burst out(teen alienation, racism, "Selling Out"(the name of another song), he juggles them all with finesse. And the cast handles things with aplomb, with the exception of, surprisingly, Bowie; while he's appropriately super-smooth as the oily executive, his voice(intended to be an American accent?) is annoying. But O'Connell and Kensit are both fresh and appealing, Anita Morris and James Fox both play well in their typecast roles(as, respectively, a sexpot gossip columnist and an effete fashion designer), there's a nice turn by Mandy Rice-Davies(who, you may remember, was in real life involved in the Profumo scandal), and a host of others in small but memorable parts(the ones I can remember are Steven Berkoff(BEVERLY HILLS COP) and Bruce Payne(PASSENGER 57) as fascists, and Paul Rhys(VINCENT AND THEO) as a mod). All in all, well worth tracking down.
Not bad, with some tremendous musical scenes; but never manages to tie together converging plotlines of the youth culture explosion, and the racial tensions brewing alongside. Young photographer chases his model girlfriend into the world of big time fashion. Tremendous fantasy-pop art at times, and a crashing bore at others. Not bad, but confusing and ultimately unsatisfying.
- sgmi-53579
- May 19, 2022
- Permalink
I remember watching this film back in 86' when it first came out & what an awful film. The acting was atrocious the plot was so flimsy it would or is that should have blew away in a breath of wind. I think it put me to sleep on more than one occasion & i was not tired that i remember. Please avoid at all costs better still have all your teeth taken out with no anaesthetic cos that would be more entertaining. It's just a pity i couldn't give it a zero or a negative score. I wish i had not wasted my money getting this one from the video shop all i can say was that the tape it was on was still brand new practically hardly surprising as the film was so poor. If i remember right i sat & watched it with a girl i really wanted to go out with & the fact she was sat next to me was still not enough to keep me awake thats how bad this film was.
First, I must respectfully disagree with the other reviewer who hated this movie. It has a complex set of plot lines that deal with a number of issues revolving around the lives of a young up-and-coming "pop photographer", and his love interest -- played by Patsy Kensit. Then, there is the "old queen" (also an unscrupulous real estate developer) who marries Patsy. Now, add to that the ad agency aspect (David Bowie's song and dance routine to "Selling Out" is a classic), plus the racial tensions in 1950's or 1960's London, and you have a multi-layered plot tapestry.
Personally, I don't mind that David Bowie is only in the movie for ten minutes -- I am a fan of Bowie, but this is really not "his movie".
Personally, I don't mind that David Bowie is only in the movie for ten minutes -- I am a fan of Bowie, but this is really not "his movie".
The film is based on a genuine 1950s novel.
Journalist Colin McInnes wrote a set of three "London novels": "Absolute Beginners", "City of Spades" and "Mr Love and Justice". I have read all three. The first two are excellent. The last, perhaps an experiment that did not come off. But McInnes's work is highly acclaimed; and rightly so. This musical is the novelist's ultimate nightmare - to see the fruits of one's mind being turned into a glitzy, badly-acted, soporific one-dimensional apology of a film that says it captures the spirit of 1950s London, and does nothing of the sort.
Thank goodness Colin McInnes wasn't alive to witness it.
Journalist Colin McInnes wrote a set of three "London novels": "Absolute Beginners", "City of Spades" and "Mr Love and Justice". I have read all three. The first two are excellent. The last, perhaps an experiment that did not come off. But McInnes's work is highly acclaimed; and rightly so. This musical is the novelist's ultimate nightmare - to see the fruits of one's mind being turned into a glitzy, badly-acted, soporific one-dimensional apology of a film that says it captures the spirit of 1950s London, and does nothing of the sort.
Thank goodness Colin McInnes wasn't alive to witness it.
Recreation of 1950's (London) Soho and the up-and-coming people. Based on a cult novel.
Julian Temple is a video director. No more, no less. Give him 15 million dollars and he will make you a 15 million dollar pop video. Here he forgets that two minutes with people that can't really act is one thing - but two hours? What was he thinking of. Besides who are the audience? Who cares about a book that was well remembered way-back-when. The usual London story of the chancer taking his chance.
What could really drag this film even further down? Oh I know, third rate songs that sound like they were made up on the spot. David Bowie crones the film title over and over a few times and that is the highlight. The soundtrack album is clay pigeon material.
There is one good thing though. Good recreation of period Soho. Shame they couldn't think of anything to put in front of it.
Julian Temple is a video director. No more, no less. Give him 15 million dollars and he will make you a 15 million dollar pop video. Here he forgets that two minutes with people that can't really act is one thing - but two hours? What was he thinking of. Besides who are the audience? Who cares about a book that was well remembered way-back-when. The usual London story of the chancer taking his chance.
What could really drag this film even further down? Oh I know, third rate songs that sound like they were made up on the spot. David Bowie crones the film title over and over a few times and that is the highlight. The soundtrack album is clay pigeon material.
There is one good thing though. Good recreation of period Soho. Shame they couldn't think of anything to put in front of it.
This might be the worst movie I ever saw. From the historical inaccuracies to the pretentious pop, everything that could be overdone was. If the year is 1958, why then is Patsy Kensit wearing a miniskirt half the time? Why not have her use a cell phone too. Hairstyles and clothes are decidedly 1980's, not 1950's. The characters in the film are lightweight, every cliché is over-indulged, and no explanation is ever given as to why the lead character is so widely admired, since he sows nothing that would make him so.
The film is shallow almost beyond belief; It is nearer a comic book than a film. Perhaps that was the filmmaker's intent. I cannot imagine anyone over the age of 12 liking this movie.
The film is shallow almost beyond belief; It is nearer a comic book than a film. Perhaps that was the filmmaker's intent. I cannot imagine anyone over the age of 12 liking this movie.
- rainergalina
- Jan 10, 2011
- Permalink
- YoungSoulRebel
- Jun 5, 2009
- Permalink
It is often said that the British just can't do film musicals. That even though we're pretty good at theatrical musicals, the cinematic version is, like gridiron football and republicanism, something best left to our cousins across the Atlantic. This prejudice even survived the award of a "Best Picture" Oscar to "Oliver!", and by the mid-eighties the traditional style of film musical was at a pretty low ebb even in America and virtually extinct in Britain. "Absolute Beginners" was therefore something completely unexpected. It was a British musical which owed nothing to Broadway and very little to the sort of pop-and-rock musicals ("Saturday Night Fever", "Fame", "Flashdance", etc.) which Hollywood had started to turn out in the seventies.
The film was also adapted from an unexpected source; the Colin MacInnes book of the same name about youth culture in late 1950s London. I doubt if MacInnes, who died in 1976, ever imagined that his novel would ever be turned into a musical. The story is set in the long hot summer of 1958. (At least, that's how MacInnes describes it, although Met Office records show that the summer of that year was wet and cool). The main character is Colin, a young photographer. In the original novel he was unnamed, but here he is named after his creator, rather oddly given that the book was not intended to be autobiographical. (MacInnes would have been 44 in 1958, a generation older than his character).
Colin falls in love with Crepe Suzette, an aspiring fashion designer, but she gets engaged to her boss Henley of Mayfair, motivated by career advantage rather than love, as Henley is an arrogant and unpleasant individual, old enough to be Suzette's father. In the book, in fact, the compulsively promiscuous Suzette is also not very pleasant, but here her character is very much softened. The film also deals with the Notting Hill race riots, shown here as having been whipped up by a Fascist rabble-rouser, unnamed but clearly based upon Oswald Mosley. The said demagogue is in league with a corrupt property developer who wants to drive the black inhabitants out of Notting Hill, at the time a very run-down area, in order to further one of his redevelopment schemes.
"Absolute Beginners" was panned by the critics and failed at the box-office. Together with the commercial failures of two other films released about the same time, "Revolution" and "The Mission", it led to a decline in the fortunes of Goldcrest, the major British film studio of the eighties. Some even started talking of a crisis in the British film industry, which had produced so many great films in the first half of the decade. The film was also disliked by literary purists who complained that it was not faithful to the original novel, particularly in the rewriting of MacInnes' ending and the bowdlerisation of Crepe Suzette's character.
And yet I loved the film and still do, even though the critics were partly right. Yes, the film has its flaws. Eddie O'Connell makes an uncharismatic hero, and seems too old for the part of Colin, who is supposed to be a teenager. (O'Connell has faded from view since 1986 to such an extent that I have been unable to find his exact date of birth, but he appears to be about thirty). The storyline does not always flow smoothly, perhaps not surprisingly given that it was the first feature film of its director Julien Temple, thitherto better known as the maker of pop videos and a documentary about the Sex Pistols. As for the literary purists, they are certainly right about its lack of fidelity to its literary source, although in its defence I should say that had it not been for this film I should in all probability never have discovered MacInnes' brilliant novel or his other writings.
The acting, like much in the film, is deliberately stylised. (Those who call it wooden are missing the point). The lovely Patsy Kensit makes a delightful heroine as Suzette in what has been described as her breakthrough role. At the time she was hailed as the "British Bardot" and is still a familiar face, even if she has never achieved her much-quoted ambition "to be more famous than anything or anyone".
Despite its faults, "Absolute Beginners" is a cool and stylish movie. It probably has little to do with the fifties as they actually were, but a lot to do with the fifties as they should have been. It has an immense drive and energy with an absolutely irresistible soundtrack. Modern audiences might be surprised that this is largely jazz based, given that we now tend to look back at the late fifties as the birth of the rock-and-roll era. At that time in Britain, however, before the rise of the Beatles, jazz was still very much part of the youth scene, particularly of the "mod" subculture, rock being associated with the mods' rivals, the "rockers". A number of leading musicians, such as David Bowie, Sade and the Style Council contributed to the film. (Bowie also makes an acting contribution as the property developer Vendice Partners).
I have a personal reason why this film is a favourite. It brings back memories a long hot summer- not that of 1958, when I was not even born, but that of 1986. At the time, I was young and in love and went to see the film with my girlfriend. I remember us coming out of the cinema together on a warm summer's evening, exhilarated by what we had just seen, and walking along the London Embankment, laughing and singing Bowie's great theme song to one another. "As long as we're together, all the rest can go to hell- I absolutely love you". With a memory like that, how could I do other than love this film? 8/10
The film was also adapted from an unexpected source; the Colin MacInnes book of the same name about youth culture in late 1950s London. I doubt if MacInnes, who died in 1976, ever imagined that his novel would ever be turned into a musical. The story is set in the long hot summer of 1958. (At least, that's how MacInnes describes it, although Met Office records show that the summer of that year was wet and cool). The main character is Colin, a young photographer. In the original novel he was unnamed, but here he is named after his creator, rather oddly given that the book was not intended to be autobiographical. (MacInnes would have been 44 in 1958, a generation older than his character).
Colin falls in love with Crepe Suzette, an aspiring fashion designer, but she gets engaged to her boss Henley of Mayfair, motivated by career advantage rather than love, as Henley is an arrogant and unpleasant individual, old enough to be Suzette's father. In the book, in fact, the compulsively promiscuous Suzette is also not very pleasant, but here her character is very much softened. The film also deals with the Notting Hill race riots, shown here as having been whipped up by a Fascist rabble-rouser, unnamed but clearly based upon Oswald Mosley. The said demagogue is in league with a corrupt property developer who wants to drive the black inhabitants out of Notting Hill, at the time a very run-down area, in order to further one of his redevelopment schemes.
"Absolute Beginners" was panned by the critics and failed at the box-office. Together with the commercial failures of two other films released about the same time, "Revolution" and "The Mission", it led to a decline in the fortunes of Goldcrest, the major British film studio of the eighties. Some even started talking of a crisis in the British film industry, which had produced so many great films in the first half of the decade. The film was also disliked by literary purists who complained that it was not faithful to the original novel, particularly in the rewriting of MacInnes' ending and the bowdlerisation of Crepe Suzette's character.
And yet I loved the film and still do, even though the critics were partly right. Yes, the film has its flaws. Eddie O'Connell makes an uncharismatic hero, and seems too old for the part of Colin, who is supposed to be a teenager. (O'Connell has faded from view since 1986 to such an extent that I have been unable to find his exact date of birth, but he appears to be about thirty). The storyline does not always flow smoothly, perhaps not surprisingly given that it was the first feature film of its director Julien Temple, thitherto better known as the maker of pop videos and a documentary about the Sex Pistols. As for the literary purists, they are certainly right about its lack of fidelity to its literary source, although in its defence I should say that had it not been for this film I should in all probability never have discovered MacInnes' brilliant novel or his other writings.
The acting, like much in the film, is deliberately stylised. (Those who call it wooden are missing the point). The lovely Patsy Kensit makes a delightful heroine as Suzette in what has been described as her breakthrough role. At the time she was hailed as the "British Bardot" and is still a familiar face, even if she has never achieved her much-quoted ambition "to be more famous than anything or anyone".
Despite its faults, "Absolute Beginners" is a cool and stylish movie. It probably has little to do with the fifties as they actually were, but a lot to do with the fifties as they should have been. It has an immense drive and energy with an absolutely irresistible soundtrack. Modern audiences might be surprised that this is largely jazz based, given that we now tend to look back at the late fifties as the birth of the rock-and-roll era. At that time in Britain, however, before the rise of the Beatles, jazz was still very much part of the youth scene, particularly of the "mod" subculture, rock being associated with the mods' rivals, the "rockers". A number of leading musicians, such as David Bowie, Sade and the Style Council contributed to the film. (Bowie also makes an acting contribution as the property developer Vendice Partners).
I have a personal reason why this film is a favourite. It brings back memories a long hot summer- not that of 1958, when I was not even born, but that of 1986. At the time, I was young and in love and went to see the film with my girlfriend. I remember us coming out of the cinema together on a warm summer's evening, exhilarated by what we had just seen, and walking along the London Embankment, laughing and singing Bowie's great theme song to one another. "As long as we're together, all the rest can go to hell- I absolutely love you". With a memory like that, how could I do other than love this film? 8/10
- JamesHitchcock
- Jan 20, 2010
- Permalink
This movie is horrible if you pay attention to it. It's a perfect movie if you just watch the colorful images dance across the screen - each one with no apparent connection to the next. I rented this movie because I'm a David Bowie fan, and I really appreciate musicals. In finality, Bowie was in the film for a total of ten minutes and the songs and dance sequences were sparse and left something to be desired. The moral of the story was really befuddling. I couldn't tell if it was about racial issues in London in the 1950s or about not selling out. For the first half of the movie I was chuckling at how cheesy it was but I liked the campiness of the "no selling out" message. When blacks started being murdered I thought my tape had gotten messed up. Maybe I rented half of two different movies? Nope, there was a "Keep Britain White" song and dance sequence. I'm sorry, but WWII is not something you can write a musical about. At least not a musical that could conceivably be described as "campy" as I have several times in this review. Overall I'd say this movie could do a whole lot better if it made up its mind and cast better actors. (And put David Bowie in it for longer goddammit!) My grade: C-
- there_is_no_possible_way_that_is_cheese
- Apr 18, 2002
- Permalink
What a Corker of a movie which moves at a lightning pace of youth in the 1950's based on the youth culture book by Colin McInnes. We see the birth of the teenager in Britain wiping away the grey cobwebs of post war Britain and revitalising it with a kaleidoscope of colour. Eddie O'Donnell is the spunky immaculately dressed hedonist who wants to dance and carouse the night away in Swinging London and Patsy Kensit's film debut is superb as Colin'ns(O'Donnel's) sex kitten who's a real temptress. The music score is excellent which interwines with the plot very well and some of London's well known honey pots are featured, like The Wag Club which is sadly no more. Ray Davies actually appears in the film, as does David Bowie and Sade.Not forgetting the great songs by The Style Council and Smiley Culture with an underlying jazz groove by Gil Evans. The Introduction to this movie is one of the best ever and features a cast of thousands. Congratulations Julian Temple on this aesthetic musical delight.
- xris-89911
- Feb 26, 2023
- Permalink
- HippieRockChick
- Jun 14, 2014
- Permalink