Grrl.com
I don't usually make a point to watch films this bad (predictable plot, laughable dialog, horrible music soundtrack, etc), but when I saw that my all-time favorite actor Jeremy Brett had a brief but memorable role in "Shameless" (originally titled "Mad Dogs and Englishmen"), I couldn't resist. It's a bizarre experience to witness an actor -- who so perfectly embodied the iconic Sherlock Holmes in the beloved Granada TV series -- appear in such an odd role of a drug-supplying sugar daddy. It's even odder to see a glimpse of him in a modern-day sexual scene with a young woman. Regardless, as usual, he stole the movie even if he was only barely in it. I only wished the director has used Brett to his fullest talents instead of as an aside eccentric.A young Elizabeth Hurley makes a mediocre attempt to portray a bored little rich girl with drug problems and C. Thomas Howell does his best to seem sexy in a grunge biker kind of way. But Brett's booming voice, subtle expressions and dynamic presence wakes you up for just long enough to pay attention to his character. Once he disappears from the screen, you realize all too soon that the rest of the film is worthless. It takes a great actor to lift up a role from the muck, and I'm sorry to see that this was Brett's only chance to do a modern-day storyline from his usual historic epics before he passed away.He briefly commented in an interview why he did the role, and soon realized the film was a disaster.On "Mad Dogs and Englishmen" (1995)-- "I was mad to do it, but I wanted to show the world that I was still alive and I could do other things apart from Sherlock Holmes. I hope they don't release it..."
didi-5
A totally lamentable mess of a film, 'starring' the untalented Liz Hurley in a plot which was something to do with drugs. I think.What really got me about this turkey was the calibre of the actors who were somehow persuaded to appear in it: Joss Ackland! Claire Bloom! Jeremy Brett, for god's sake (in his final film appearance as he died soon after). Alan Freeman (no, wait, he probably belongs here as an overaged daft DJ).The worst thing about it is that you remember certain bits of awfulness for ages and ages afterwards. Trust me, you really don't want to see Ackland in sexy scenes. You don't. And that bit with Hurley and Brett is just sooo pathetic. Tut. Avoid this load of rubbish at all costs.
janus-25
Liz hurley 5/10... mostly for her bod joss ackland 8/10 ... Good acting everyone else ... pretty forgettable... Strange twisted plot to emphasise the "decadence" of the upper class .. who even despise the QUEEN!. Yes, cockneys, toffs and a bit of rough... Burke and Hare ... semi-gay drug lords... RIGHTEOUS justice (no mention of Alan titchmarsh tho). It's all here with colorful red buses and lovely old country houses. Shame about the plot and the acting. Erotic? no!
cog-2
This film is worth seeing simply for its monumental crapness. In the first half an hour alone countless unsympathetic characters are introduced, some of whom proceed to perform random and inexplicable actions throughout. The plot is so disjointed and badly conceived, it requires considerable effort to maintain any idea of what's going on. Not that there's any reason to do so. Instead, viewers should marvel at some appallingly bad dialogue, a staggeringly inept piece of acting from Liz Hurley, and one of the most incomprehensible plotlines I've ever come across in a film. Worth watching, simply because it is SO bad.
AD
