I'll Never Forget What's'isname

Irrespective of any reviewer opinion, every viewer interprets what he or she sees hears or any scene , or entire narrative moves us to bring our own personal feelings, descriptive explanations and possibly some level of final personal outcome , verbalised on to this page ! We well remember Oliver Reed was a complicated character and possibly in real life portrayed various personal characteristics in the presence of some folk , which would be totally different for other people ? The British class system in the 1960s ( and to some extent due to some enbarrasment less so in rhe 2000s ) was horribly egocentric and to the uninitiated unfathomable ! One very weird example was the POUNDS SHILLINGS AND PENCE eccentric system of payment ! I never did fathom the illogicality of SIX PENCE ( which was a single coin partially made of silver ) which as seen in the supermarket as 6 D !!! That alone sums up BRITISH ecentricity , and then pile on top of that the egotistical garbage referred to by Orson ! ( a good exammple of a man unafraid of risks, however much danger might lie in wait to snare him ? This film (movie for those of that preference ? ) goes to a lot of trouble and the actors do the script justice in their portrayals of the trials and tribulations of overgrown children that could not come to terms with their own adulthood ! I was lucky enough to have a week of work on one of Winners comedies ! This serious narrative seems to show him as very competent and well directed by him. Whether true or not regarding Orson directing his scenes, I have no idea ? I could not discern any difference in style or aristic application ? So, for me that remains unknown. As I try to say at the start of this review, and in addition to that , i do feel this entertains and even educates , albeit entreched as it is in a time and space now of historical interest ? Bearing in mind many Brit eccentricities still stick like gooey glue which refuses to be killed off !

Pretty poor film in terms of plot and structure but interesting as a glimpse of a long gone London and for some lovely footage of Cambridge.

Also worth casting your eye over the cast, Welles looking bloated and unwell, Reed's striking looks somewhat dented by the facial scarring as a result of a 1963 bar fight and Carol White youthful and beautiful before her succumbing in following years to substance addiction. Michael Winner makes one his final Brit films before moving to Hollywood and it's certainly no classic, kind of a 'Garden State' of its day - episodic but contrived and laboured.

However, England looks good and the 60s do look pretty swinging.

The year of 1967 was significant for the 'swinging London', psychedelic music and some of the craziest movies ever made. This fine film from the much derided Michael Winner is one of the very good ones. Much use is made of UK locations, London, Cambridge and small but accurate details like the colourful boutiques and rather the awful public school. Also very apt for the time is the idea that work should be 'honest', that joint the 'rat race' or treadmill of life was all wrong. That there was an alternative. The concept of free love also prevalent at the time is also much to the fore although Winner does not shy away from tackling the downside, divorce, jealousy, children etc. But, this is a colourful and mostly cheerful film with great performances from a host of British stars. Reed is great, Carol White does very well, as does Wendy Craig (don't think I've seen her in her underwear before!) and must also mention delightful cameo from a gorgeous looking Marianne Faithful. It's all much ado about nothing essentially but there is an edge to this and it is a very accurate slice of life in 1967.

32-year-old advertising executive in London walks to his office one morning carrying an axe, which he then uses to break up his desk before he resigns; his boss tries talking him out of it while his many women friends express concern for his future. Director Michael Winner and screenwriter Peter Draper eschew most of the clichés of the era's trendy surroundings for a somewhat more sober portrait of the upwardly mobile working class. Draper writes some very incisive dialogue (example: "Why is it these days everybody but me seems to be 22? What happened 22 years ago tonight?" .. "All the grown-ups went home to bed."). However, Draper's protagonist (played smugly by Oliver Reed) is hardly a likable guy. Handsomely-made film is edited with precision and was considered quite frank and provocative in its day. **1/2 from ****

Although constructed around "swinging " London this tale of futility in the pursuit of happiness endures. Oliver Reed will come as a surprise to most people who would not have thought the latter day hell raiser could deliver such a sensitive performance as the central character Andrew Quint.

A successful advertising exec Quint belabours the notion of a simple life and eschews the trappings of his current situation ( both professional and domestic ) to work at a small literary magazine with a friend from his days at Oxford. These trappings include two mistresses and an ex wife. The scenes with the mistresses are perhaps the least pleasing of the whole film.

"I never really saw the money anyway, it came in and went out ; if I felt like being successful I'd go and buy a new shirt"

A series of symbolic events unfold ( most notably a public school reunion and the pointless death of his new girlfriend )which only serve in Quint considering joining an equally exploitative competitor to the ad agency he quit at the outset.