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
56 Reviews
Underrated, gorgeous, joyful -- and where's the LBX video?
NeelyO12 August 1999
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?
bombast
kurtfaasse13 July 2023
A West Side Story knockoff that tries to look like Quadrophenia, and serves mainly and probably solely as a publicity platform for Bowie and Sade. Listless choreography and dull songs, even from the star man himself, do not set this up as any kind of cultural wunderkind. Absolute Beginners is closer in spirit to Bye Bye, Birdie than to any kind of anthem to social rebellion in a historical locale. Then it kind of oozes into Lord Love A Duck territory where psychopathy is a replacement for sincerity. Do real people actually act this way? Or did they, back then? Does singing and dancing make history more valid? Can a full length feature film mimic the then newly sprung MTV and get away with it? That the song is considered one of Bowie's meh contributions, and the film is mainly forgotten, is the answer.
I like this one!
d-mael14 May 2004
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".
Unwatchable for Technical Reasons Alone
davet1081-964-97611016 August 2015
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.
ADHD filmmaking that fails to fly despite all the energy.
hawksburn19 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I always had a soft spot for this film for reasons rather intangible. It possesses that unmistakable 80's energy visible of a pre-ADHD era and a colour & style palate that not only screams at you but effectively bludgeons you over the head for extra measure. If you want to know what this film is about, it's all up there on screen.
Unfortunately the visual vivacity does not extend to the script. In fact it outpaces the script, literally teasing it to catch up, and in the rare moments it does you're reminded exactly why it doesn't work. Somewhere in there is a story of young love torn apart, set against a background of rising fascism engineered by opportunistic property developers seeking to gentrify what's more or less a somewhat idealised version of a 50's London working class multicultural neighbourhood where everyone is poor but still able to dress stylishly and emanate urban cool. In other words "Slum chic". Temple just doesn't have the talent to manage it properly and at times it feels like one is watching two or three completely separate films. This feeling is most jarring during the complete lack of transition between the supposedly intertwining film plots. Instead of flow you get the abrupt introduction of a musical number and one that usually doesn't feel like it bears any resemblance to the scene you watched 5 seconds before. It feels like papering over the cracks primarily due to a complete lack of ideas as to how to properly hang it all together.
That said some of the musical interludes are fantastic. Particularly enjoyable is Ray Davies lamenting his home life in the middle of a superb three level set from the bottom floor kitchen to the top floor attic, complete with nagging unfaithful wife (played by Mandy Rice Davies, there are many great cameos for film, music and history nerds to enjoy spotting), a lothario boarder and a energetically masturbating sex obsessed teenage boy.
The performances are generally fine. I liked Eddie O'Connell tho it appears the complete box office failure put paid to any chance of a burgeoning film career as, other than the odd British TV series episode over the years, his place in the acting universe has become that of a rather minor character actor. Patsy Kensit does what she can but her role is tossed about on the confused whims of the director and screenplay more than any other, so it's no wonder that she comes across as emotionally unstable and I'm not entirely sure it's all down to her acting. Btw her name in the film is Crepe Suzette and that's far too easy to belittle so I won't.
I've always been a big fan of the greatly underrated late Anita Morris and she does a role she can do in her sleep more than adequately. I'm also a big fan of 80's era Bowie (my formative teenage years) but his American accent is like a forced pastiche of every movie trailer voice-over guy you've ever heard. It's pretty awful.
My favourite part of the film is the opening scene which is a wonder of marvellous choreography set amongst a magnificent urban set (obviously constructed inside a studio). The camera tracks our narrator and main character as he weaves in and out of streets, stores and alleyways, surrounded by the activity of probably a couple of hundred actors, musicians and dancers interspersed with moving vehicles of multiple types. It lasts for a good couple of minutes and it's a wonderful sequence. The The problem is it raises the viewer expectation level for the rest of the movie, something it simply fails to achieve.
It's a film that seems like it's trying very hard to be an inner London West Side Story, set in an 80's ideal of what the 50's "should have been like". In that respect it almost feels like a companion piece to Streets of Fire, a mythical mostly recognisable land that isn't really here, especially given both films share a vaguely similar musical backbone (tho Streets does it better). Despite this it's still a remarkable curiosity that in the hands of a better filmmaker could have been a pleasant memory for many more than the few who bought a ticket to see it. As it is it's a colourful gaudy confused mess with the energy to power 10 films.
Unfortunately the visual vivacity does not extend to the script. In fact it outpaces the script, literally teasing it to catch up, and in the rare moments it does you're reminded exactly why it doesn't work. Somewhere in there is a story of young love torn apart, set against a background of rising fascism engineered by opportunistic property developers seeking to gentrify what's more or less a somewhat idealised version of a 50's London working class multicultural neighbourhood where everyone is poor but still able to dress stylishly and emanate urban cool. In other words "Slum chic". Temple just doesn't have the talent to manage it properly and at times it feels like one is watching two or three completely separate films. This feeling is most jarring during the complete lack of transition between the supposedly intertwining film plots. Instead of flow you get the abrupt introduction of a musical number and one that usually doesn't feel like it bears any resemblance to the scene you watched 5 seconds before. It feels like papering over the cracks primarily due to a complete lack of ideas as to how to properly hang it all together.
That said some of the musical interludes are fantastic. Particularly enjoyable is Ray Davies lamenting his home life in the middle of a superb three level set from the bottom floor kitchen to the top floor attic, complete with nagging unfaithful wife (played by Mandy Rice Davies, there are many great cameos for film, music and history nerds to enjoy spotting), a lothario boarder and a energetically masturbating sex obsessed teenage boy.
The performances are generally fine. I liked Eddie O'Connell tho it appears the complete box office failure put paid to any chance of a burgeoning film career as, other than the odd British TV series episode over the years, his place in the acting universe has become that of a rather minor character actor. Patsy Kensit does what she can but her role is tossed about on the confused whims of the director and screenplay more than any other, so it's no wonder that she comes across as emotionally unstable and I'm not entirely sure it's all down to her acting. Btw her name in the film is Crepe Suzette and that's far too easy to belittle so I won't.
I've always been a big fan of the greatly underrated late Anita Morris and she does a role she can do in her sleep more than adequately. I'm also a big fan of 80's era Bowie (my formative teenage years) but his American accent is like a forced pastiche of every movie trailer voice-over guy you've ever heard. It's pretty awful.
My favourite part of the film is the opening scene which is a wonder of marvellous choreography set amongst a magnificent urban set (obviously constructed inside a studio). The camera tracks our narrator and main character as he weaves in and out of streets, stores and alleyways, surrounded by the activity of probably a couple of hundred actors, musicians and dancers interspersed with moving vehicles of multiple types. It lasts for a good couple of minutes and it's a wonderful sequence. The The problem is it raises the viewer expectation level for the rest of the movie, something it simply fails to achieve.
It's a film that seems like it's trying very hard to be an inner London West Side Story, set in an 80's ideal of what the 50's "should have been like". In that respect it almost feels like a companion piece to Streets of Fire, a mythical mostly recognisable land that isn't really here, especially given both films share a vaguely similar musical backbone (tho Streets does it better). Despite this it's still a remarkable curiosity that in the hands of a better filmmaker could have been a pleasant memory for many more than the few who bought a ticket to see it. As it is it's a colourful gaudy confused mess with the energy to power 10 films.
Dire
m-look5 November 2010
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.
Doesn't accomplish it's goals
sgmi-5357920 May 2022
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.
The film that wrecked the British Film Industry
dave270221 September 2002
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.
Curious Slice of Time
LeonardKniffel1 May 2020
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.
Total pile of garbage
itc-emma3 October 2006
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.
Unjustly overlooked 80's musical
SKG-220 August 1999
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.
A Breathtaking Rush of a Movie Where Things Happen and People Say Things
SpotMonkee15 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
For a film that was designed to and hyped as the savior of the much-troubled British film industry through international success, ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS is hampered from a setting and premise that is, for lack of a better description, too British. Anyone not familiar with late-1950s British sociopolitics, the post-WW2 rise of far-right and neo-fascist groups, the differing subculture of the period and their influence on musical and broader popular culture is bound to feel like they're being dragged along through an exhilarating ride through an alien world with no time to catch your breath.
It's a series of breathtakingly-choreographed and staged music videos strung together by the thinnest of plots, with things happening for seemingly no logical rhyme or reason except to show the audience something cool and expensive. And believe me, it is all very cool and very expensive. But the absence of strong leads in either Eddie O'Connell or Patsy Kensit and a definite directorial philosophy of "style over substance" that manifests itself as movie "things happen just because". A 14-year old con artist that goes from bubblegum pop merchandise hawker, to pimp, to white supremacist? There's that. David Bowie as an advertising executive-nee-corrupt real estate developer using said white supremacists to force minority tenants out of a future gentrification zone, whose accent oscillates wildly between dialect and continent? This film's got you covered. Bruce Payne screaming the lyrics "Great Balls of Fire" while pounding on a flaming piano? Don't know why or how you'd want that, but this movie certainly delivers. ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS is a film of set-pieces and expensive showcases but little else, intended to envoke some deep sense of nostalgia for a period that most contemporary audience will be completely alien to. It's a film that just sort of exists because it does.
It's a series of breathtakingly-choreographed and staged music videos strung together by the thinnest of plots, with things happening for seemingly no logical rhyme or reason except to show the audience something cool and expensive. And believe me, it is all very cool and very expensive. But the absence of strong leads in either Eddie O'Connell or Patsy Kensit and a definite directorial philosophy of "style over substance" that manifests itself as movie "things happen just because". A 14-year old con artist that goes from bubblegum pop merchandise hawker, to pimp, to white supremacist? There's that. David Bowie as an advertising executive-nee-corrupt real estate developer using said white supremacists to force minority tenants out of a future gentrification zone, whose accent oscillates wildly between dialect and continent? This film's got you covered. Bruce Payne screaming the lyrics "Great Balls of Fire" while pounding on a flaming piano? Don't know why or how you'd want that, but this movie certainly delivers. ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS is a film of set-pieces and expensive showcases but little else, intended to envoke some deep sense of nostalgia for a period that most contemporary audience will be completely alien to. It's a film that just sort of exists because it does.
Absolutely baffling
mollytinkers3 June 2021
Who green-lighted this project? And why? And how did Mr. Bowie get attached to it?
Was there no editor or producer who approved the daily rushes? Who thought transforming source material, which I have never read, into a musical? Has anyone else realized the dubbing/voiceover was below subpar?
Watch at your own risk.
Was there no editor or producer who approved the daily rushes? Who thought transforming source material, which I have never read, into a musical? Has anyone else realized the dubbing/voiceover was below subpar?
Watch at your own risk.
Unique Film
swift-1014 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
The over-ambitious "Absolute Beginners" is one of those films that is difficult because it frustrates you of its potential to be excellent. And while it had excellent parts, those parts were better than the whole. The performances were fine, although one never finds oneself caring too much about any of the characters. That point would be irrelevant in some other film. But, in the last thirty minutes or so (at the beginning of the race riots), that caring would be the drive that would keep the viewer from turning it off. While I did not stop the film, I did fast forward it. Ten minutes would have been more than enough, as it never needed to be that redundant. Even at ten minutes, it would have felt tacked on, much less over thirty. It left a bad taste on a film that, so far, was pretty decent. A large musical number at the end would have been appropriate, not a half-hour parade of blood, fire, and broken glass.
But let us draw on some of its virtues, which it has as many as it does faults. The opening shot is wonderful, showing us a colorful "Swinging London" with choreographed movements by the streetwalkers (some of them anyway). The songs, unlike a large amount of film musicals, have been welded with the story. They flow. They need to be there. The songs express what words cannot. The actors SHOULD be breaking out into song. And further than that, they are good. The color is another main enjoyment, as the whole story had to do with glitter, flash, and things that are attractive. Crammed, stuffed with color, as it should be. Examples of this are the opening shot, the wonderful "unveiling" of Suzette at the fashion show, the first club scene, etc. While the characters are very two dimensional, they are well acted, and their motivations are always very clear. Yes, the characters never emerge from plot points to actual human beings, but that is a minor drawback.
The songs. When mentioning "Absolute Beginners," one must mention Ray Davies and the Kinks' number, "Quiet Life." One of the most brilliant musical numbers in the film is not crucial to the story. However, I am most glad that it was left in. Painful, mildly disturbing, and darkly funny at times, it is catchy and simply excellent. The songs performed by the child rock star were quite annoying, but then again, I find a fourteen year old boy singing irritating in itself. "Having it All," as well as Colin's song following, are both very good and, as I see it, essential to the story. "Selling Out" is wonderful, and essential to making the motivations of Colin more clear. The David Bowie number, "Motivation," is more visually stimulating than musically. The song is nothing special, while its Busbey Berkely style complemented by quick editing is the main attraction. "Killer Blow," performed onscreen by Sade (a nice bonus), is a fine song/sequence. Besides it not being available on widescreen DVD, it is a shame that the CD is not available, as it would be a nice listen every once in a while.
It could have been SO much better. It should have been so much better. Whatever made the writers/director feel that the didactic anti-racism message needed to be crammed in at the end I'll never know. (Note: It's not the message I mind a bit, but the cramming in of 30 minutes of yelling and violence. It's a musical, and one which racism wasn't even its main focus.) And the ending (SPOILER AHEAD) about Colin and Suzette back together hasn't any basis on which it should be considered a happy ending. Aren't they, at heart, two different people?
But, if you see it for rental at your video store, do get it. I own it. I just know where to stop the film isn't necessarily at the end credits.
But let us draw on some of its virtues, which it has as many as it does faults. The opening shot is wonderful, showing us a colorful "Swinging London" with choreographed movements by the streetwalkers (some of them anyway). The songs, unlike a large amount of film musicals, have been welded with the story. They flow. They need to be there. The songs express what words cannot. The actors SHOULD be breaking out into song. And further than that, they are good. The color is another main enjoyment, as the whole story had to do with glitter, flash, and things that are attractive. Crammed, stuffed with color, as it should be. Examples of this are the opening shot, the wonderful "unveiling" of Suzette at the fashion show, the first club scene, etc. While the characters are very two dimensional, they are well acted, and their motivations are always very clear. Yes, the characters never emerge from plot points to actual human beings, but that is a minor drawback.
The songs. When mentioning "Absolute Beginners," one must mention Ray Davies and the Kinks' number, "Quiet Life." One of the most brilliant musical numbers in the film is not crucial to the story. However, I am most glad that it was left in. Painful, mildly disturbing, and darkly funny at times, it is catchy and simply excellent. The songs performed by the child rock star were quite annoying, but then again, I find a fourteen year old boy singing irritating in itself. "Having it All," as well as Colin's song following, are both very good and, as I see it, essential to the story. "Selling Out" is wonderful, and essential to making the motivations of Colin more clear. The David Bowie number, "Motivation," is more visually stimulating than musically. The song is nothing special, while its Busbey Berkely style complemented by quick editing is the main attraction. "Killer Blow," performed onscreen by Sade (a nice bonus), is a fine song/sequence. Besides it not being available on widescreen DVD, it is a shame that the CD is not available, as it would be a nice listen every once in a while.
It could have been SO much better. It should have been so much better. Whatever made the writers/director feel that the didactic anti-racism message needed to be crammed in at the end I'll never know. (Note: It's not the message I mind a bit, but the cramming in of 30 minutes of yelling and violence. It's a musical, and one which racism wasn't even its main focus.) And the ending (SPOILER AHEAD) about Colin and Suzette back together hasn't any basis on which it should be considered a happy ending. Aren't they, at heart, two different people?
But, if you see it for rental at your video store, do get it. I own it. I just know where to stop the film isn't necessarily at the end credits.
uneven British musical flop
SnoopyStyle22 May 2021
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.
It was OK but boring in some scenes.....
Irishchatter12 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
As the legend David Bowie died yesterday morning, I decided to watch this movie and I was disappointed that Bowie only appeared 30 minutes throughout.
The music and dancing was great, although I thought some of the songs were really long and not clicking to me. Patsy Kensit looked really cute back then and she sings very well for a Houslow girl! I really liked the scene where she shows off her dancing at the fashion show she was working in. I wish I could be able to show my true colors like that! Eddie O'Connell was good little singer too! He must've been so young doing this and he hasn't even done any movies that were big like this! I wish he was recognised seriously after being on this movie! Anyways its alright that he didn't want to go to Hollywood lol! Its an alright movie but it would be better if it wasn't nearly 2 hours long!
The music and dancing was great, although I thought some of the songs were really long and not clicking to me. Patsy Kensit looked really cute back then and she sings very well for a Houslow girl! I really liked the scene where she shows off her dancing at the fashion show she was working in. I wish I could be able to show my true colors like that! Eddie O'Connell was good little singer too! He must've been so young doing this and he hasn't even done any movies that were big like this! I wish he was recognised seriously after being on this movie! Anyways its alright that he didn't want to go to Hollywood lol! Its an alright movie but it would be better if it wasn't nearly 2 hours long!
Half baked nonsense on very expensive sets.
Pedro_H8 February 2004
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.
I love this movie, and can't blame those who hate it.
davidhlynch24 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie that, more than any other I can think of, is about style over substance. Several aspects of the movie hint at its essential shallowness. First, the director, Julien Temple, had recently gone from working with the Sex Pistols to directing videos for Janet Jackson. This was the era of Janet's big dance production videos and the influence can definitely be seen in the movie. Second, they created an old-fashioned musical out of a book by Colin MacInnes, a radical bohemian English novelist - it's the equivalent of turning "On the Road" into a Disney musical cartoon. Last and probably least, my favorite communist punk - Paul Weller - showed up with his new band Style Council to give us a happy-sad little pop tune about losing your girlfriend.
What the movie lacks in depth it more than makes up for in style. The above-mentioned Weller tune ("Have you Ever Had it Blue") is my personal favorite of the post-punk new pop wave of the eighties. Bowie's performance is great; all the musical numbers are choreographed and executed - well - fabulously, from David Bowie dancing on a giant typewriter to Sade just dripping sophistication and sensuality on the stage of a mock-seedy basement nightclub. Even if the direction misses the seriousness of the source material, it really captures the musical essence of each of the many and diverse songs.
What the movie lacks in depth it more than makes up for in style. The above-mentioned Weller tune ("Have you Ever Had it Blue") is my personal favorite of the post-punk new pop wave of the eighties. Bowie's performance is great; all the musical numbers are choreographed and executed - well - fabulously, from David Bowie dancing on a giant typewriter to Sade just dripping sophistication and sensuality on the stage of a mock-seedy basement nightclub. Even if the direction misses the seriousness of the source material, it really captures the musical essence of each of the many and diverse songs.
Absolute Drivel
loza-125 February 2007
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.
wasted time
rainergalina11 January 2011
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.
How can I do other than love this film?
JamesHitchcock21 January 2010
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
Beginners Is Right!
HippieRockChick15 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't exactly hold high expectations for this, and I admit I watched it solely for David Bowie. But any hopes or expectations I held were speedily dashed.
What the hell WAS this farrago? A British "West Side Story", with much less compelling music. Instead of Jets vs. Sharks, it was Teds, neo-fascists and greedy developers vs. just about the entire rest of society. In 1958,the year of the story, I was 12 years old, on the verge of becoming a "teenager", this mysteriously powerful being lauded by the film as a kind of godlike figure. But the glamorization of such nasty people and the romanticism of violence, improbable situations is SO unlikely and hard to swallow. I was a kid, as I said, but I really doubt that people sat around in cafés in narcoleptic trances snapping their fingers, or at least not for long periods of time. This fictional romanticism of parasites on society is my major hate on "West Side Story" itself. And the music was godawful, except for Bowie's contributions.
As for the actors: Patsy Kensit was charming enough in a thankless role, Eddie O'Connell basically disappeared into the scenery and didn't have the chops to carry the part, James Fox was delicious as always, and Bowie had about ten minutes total screen time, including a fairly dumb musical number, only tolerable because it was him and because he's a really good dancer who wore one of the best suits I've ever seen. A sad waste of his talents: I find him to be a very engaging actor and a lot better than people give him credit for.
All in all, an unpleasant, improbable piece of silliness, reducing the Notting Hill riots to choreographed posing. Avoid.
What the hell WAS this farrago? A British "West Side Story", with much less compelling music. Instead of Jets vs. Sharks, it was Teds, neo-fascists and greedy developers vs. just about the entire rest of society. In 1958,the year of the story, I was 12 years old, on the verge of becoming a "teenager", this mysteriously powerful being lauded by the film as a kind of godlike figure. But the glamorization of such nasty people and the romanticism of violence, improbable situations is SO unlikely and hard to swallow. I was a kid, as I said, but I really doubt that people sat around in cafés in narcoleptic trances snapping their fingers, or at least not for long periods of time. This fictional romanticism of parasites on society is my major hate on "West Side Story" itself. And the music was godawful, except for Bowie's contributions.
As for the actors: Patsy Kensit was charming enough in a thankless role, Eddie O'Connell basically disappeared into the scenery and didn't have the chops to carry the part, James Fox was delicious as always, and Bowie had about ten minutes total screen time, including a fairly dumb musical number, only tolerable because it was him and because he's a really good dancer who wore one of the best suits I've ever seen. A sad waste of his talents: I find him to be a very engaging actor and a lot better than people give him credit for.
All in all, an unpleasant, improbable piece of silliness, reducing the Notting Hill riots to choreographed posing. Avoid.
Exhilarating Adrenalin Rush
kryan-12 May 2001
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.
Not for fans of the novel
YoungSoulRebel6 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
If you've read the original novel, as I did, you will probably hate this thing.
The film version of _Absolute Beginners_ is a nightmarish conglomerate of 1980s anachronisms attempting to create a "period piece" set in the late 1950s and failing to re-create or even pay homage to that period -- the US monstrosity of _Dirty Dancing_ does similar to 1963, except that film proved financially successful despite having equally amateurish screen writing. In addition to suffering from "looking too 1980s", the characters have been changed, re-arranged, and downplayed to the point that the only characteristics they have in common with those of the novel are the slightest superficial looks and, of course, their names: Suze is transformed from the narrator's flighty ex-girlfriend and promiscuous negrophile who willingly plans to marry a closeted old queen for money (at her own admittance in the first few pages) into a hapless and naive "Eve"-archetype seduced by fame and glamour, exploited and somehow scammed into a sham marriage by her boss, who surprisingly wasn't given a Van Dyke and pointy hairstyle. She and the narrator, re-named "Colin" (after the book's author, Colin MacInnes) for the film, are also in a relationship.
Big Jill's character, a lesbian seemingly butch yet "fop like" in her mid-20s who acts as pimp to a cadre of young and bubble-headed lesbians, and one of the narrator's closest friends, dispensing frank wisdom to the narrator, is reduced to a sort of "named extra" with only a few throw-away lines, and tonnes of comical outfits.
The Fabulous Hoplite, a gay young man and another close friend of the narrator in the novel, is also reduced to the point of being pointless in the film, camped-up and all but ignored.
The narrator's father in the novel is a sort of sad minor character but in the film, he's played to come off as optimistic and oddly spirited despite the squalid neighbourhood, and the disarray of his marriage to the narrator's mum seems, for all practical purposes, ignored.
In its favour, the music (for what it is) is well-composed, and you have to give the production and writing crews credit for actually taking a line from the book ("...some days, they'll write musicals about the 1950s...") as their inspiration to write a musical, but in the world of bad camped-up musicals, this is among the most poorly executed in the bunch. Unlike _Shock Treatment_ or _Starstruck_ crucial plot elements are treated as afterthoughts. Unlike _The Apple_, there is a choppy and uneven flow between musical numbers and spoken dialogue.
You really can't blame it's "too 1980s" feel on the fact that it was created in the 1980s. The film version of _Annie_ released in 1981, pays a wonderfully well-executed tribute to the look and feel of New York City in the 1930s, and _Napolean Dynamite_ manages to capture a gritty sort of look and feel of the 1980s despite being made on a low budget in 2003 (though it's not explicitly set in the 1980s, those who lived through the decade cannot deny that the film "feels very 1980s"). Obviously, it was _possible_ to make something good out of this, especially considering the iconic status that the source novel has in the UK, but it fails most apparently in the look and feel, and also in its treatment of the source material, which is downright disrespectful.
Perhaps if you haven't read and have no intentions of reading the novel, you could enjoy this campy 1980s anachronism giving a shameful parody of late-1950s Soho London's modernist jazz set. I can definitely see what the writing team were attempting, but they definitely could have done better. With Boy George as a household name and mixed-race musicians and bands on the charts in 1986 UK, they definitely did _not_ need to bowdlerise the characters in the ways that they ended up doing. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that the writers wound up doing what both the book and film criticised harshly -- it ended up having a bunch of adults cranking out crap and treating its targeted teen-aged audience like two-bit idiots to make a quick buck off of.
The film version of _Absolute Beginners_ is a nightmarish conglomerate of 1980s anachronisms attempting to create a "period piece" set in the late 1950s and failing to re-create or even pay homage to that period -- the US monstrosity of _Dirty Dancing_ does similar to 1963, except that film proved financially successful despite having equally amateurish screen writing. In addition to suffering from "looking too 1980s", the characters have been changed, re-arranged, and downplayed to the point that the only characteristics they have in common with those of the novel are the slightest superficial looks and, of course, their names: Suze is transformed from the narrator's flighty ex-girlfriend and promiscuous negrophile who willingly plans to marry a closeted old queen for money (at her own admittance in the first few pages) into a hapless and naive "Eve"-archetype seduced by fame and glamour, exploited and somehow scammed into a sham marriage by her boss, who surprisingly wasn't given a Van Dyke and pointy hairstyle. She and the narrator, re-named "Colin" (after the book's author, Colin MacInnes) for the film, are also in a relationship.
Big Jill's character, a lesbian seemingly butch yet "fop like" in her mid-20s who acts as pimp to a cadre of young and bubble-headed lesbians, and one of the narrator's closest friends, dispensing frank wisdom to the narrator, is reduced to a sort of "named extra" with only a few throw-away lines, and tonnes of comical outfits.
The Fabulous Hoplite, a gay young man and another close friend of the narrator in the novel, is also reduced to the point of being pointless in the film, camped-up and all but ignored.
The narrator's father in the novel is a sort of sad minor character but in the film, he's played to come off as optimistic and oddly spirited despite the squalid neighbourhood, and the disarray of his marriage to the narrator's mum seems, for all practical purposes, ignored.
In its favour, the music (for what it is) is well-composed, and you have to give the production and writing crews credit for actually taking a line from the book ("...some days, they'll write musicals about the 1950s...") as their inspiration to write a musical, but in the world of bad camped-up musicals, this is among the most poorly executed in the bunch. Unlike _Shock Treatment_ or _Starstruck_ crucial plot elements are treated as afterthoughts. Unlike _The Apple_, there is a choppy and uneven flow between musical numbers and spoken dialogue.
You really can't blame it's "too 1980s" feel on the fact that it was created in the 1980s. The film version of _Annie_ released in 1981, pays a wonderfully well-executed tribute to the look and feel of New York City in the 1930s, and _Napolean Dynamite_ manages to capture a gritty sort of look and feel of the 1980s despite being made on a low budget in 2003 (though it's not explicitly set in the 1980s, those who lived through the decade cannot deny that the film "feels very 1980s"). Obviously, it was _possible_ to make something good out of this, especially considering the iconic status that the source novel has in the UK, but it fails most apparently in the look and feel, and also in its treatment of the source material, which is downright disrespectful.
Perhaps if you haven't read and have no intentions of reading the novel, you could enjoy this campy 1980s anachronism giving a shameful parody of late-1950s Soho London's modernist jazz set. I can definitely see what the writing team were attempting, but they definitely could have done better. With Boy George as a household name and mixed-race musicians and bands on the charts in 1986 UK, they definitely did _not_ need to bowdlerise the characters in the ways that they ended up doing. In fact, I'd go so far as saying that the writers wound up doing what both the book and film criticised harshly -- it ended up having a bunch of adults cranking out crap and treating its targeted teen-aged audience like two-bit idiots to make a quick buck off of.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
