FlashCallahan
Nineteen year old Colin is trying to find his place in life. He believes in equality for all, regardless of race, colour, creed, sex or sexual orientation. He has nothing against money, but doesn't like what some people have to do to obtain money, or what money does to people. He loves Suzette, and she loves him, but is focusing on her career as a fashion designer. Colin drops his principles to do work for money to impress Suzette, as a photographer. Through this process, Colin finds that he ends up being the public spirit of the London teenager. But that work takes him from his own ideals, from which he may not be able to escape to find his way back to his self and to Suzette...........Somewhere in this pile of rubbish, is a wonderful work of genius trying to get out, and despite the fact that Temple is an artist in his own right,Mathis is a failure of epic proportions.And it's a crying shame, because there are some flashes of genius between the tiresome, tawdry dance scenes, and the first ten minutes really does build you up for something special.And that's the problem, just when you think its in danger of getting boring to the point of wanting to turn it off, a set dazzles you, or Lionel Blair pops up in a cameo, and this is how the film is for it's running time.Kensit and O'Connell are impressive as the Romeo and Juliet of the story, but the addition of some wonderful side characters such as Ed The Ted, and The Fanatic, leave them waiting in the sidelines just looking pretty.And then we have the Notting Hill Race Riots depicted using the medium of dance. Is this a flash of genius, or just pretentious prattle prattle aiming to challenge?It doesn't challenge, it baffles, because something that affected so many back in the fifties, has been resorted to the jitterbug.Like I've said, there are some flashes of genius, but at the end of the day, it just feels too pretentious for its own good.
m-look
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.
silver_pheonix13
I bought this movie for $1 at a bargain store. When it first began, I was really impressed by the complicated sets, neat choreography, and promise of interesting characters. Unfortunately, halfway through the movie, it completely abandons logic. Unnecessary songs are thrown in (David Bowie's "Selling Out", complete with giant typewriter, is laughably disturbing.) Character development is abandoned (I would have loved to see more interaction between the main character and his colorful assortment of friends.) And crime-of-crimes David Bowie is horrendously cast as a staid (if flashy) businessman
who acts exactly as he will in the later movie "Labyrinth." The 1st scene was actually worth the buy, it's roaming technique makes AB's London gritty, colorful, huge and intimate all at once. It will take you by surprise. Even the freak-show with Rys-Davies glitters with some inner genius. Unfortunately, the movie tries too hard to be intelligent, and ends up with too much plot weight for a musical to handle. By the time it has reach the "climatic" street brawl scene, its spine has already snapped. It's the last flails of a dying creature. The movie leaves you confused, disappointed, and angry at all the characters.And it ends with a gratuitous sex scene no less.
ptb-8
A great idea and a huge Brit budget, ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS is so ambitious and so technically well and packed with great 80s Soho jazz musical numbers that it forgets to include the hooks for an audience. It is actually for people in theater and film who love musicals and the techniques. It isn't for the general ticket buying public who expect a conventional story with a structure. The lead actor Eddie OConnell is a bit Ken doll or even Cliff Richard...maybe that is the point but he is lacking in charisma. Visually it is a feast and musically it is very engaging, but like the Minnelli musicals YOLANDA AND THE THIEF or THE PIRATE and the Brit satire Ken Russell musical THE BOYFRIEND or John Waters 1988 film of HAIRSPRAY there has to be a strong core to break though to mainstream cinema goers; otherwise, like those films, it is relegated to cult interest and the 'noble failure' bin. In time it will be a quintessential 80s style musical and we are not far enough away from then yet. It also cost a massive amount and lost it all, killing off the studio that financed the $15m.... ugh. If made today, it would be financed by Absolute Vodka and marketed with panache, finding a huge multiplex audience and making zillions of dollars for all concerned...thus being hailed as a success and a masterpiece.
AD
