In Victorian London, the British Government attempts a solution to the problem of prostitution by establishing the world's most fabulous brothel.In Victorian London, the British Government attempts a solution to the problem of prostitution by establishing the world's most fabulous brothel.In Victorian London, the British Government attempts a solution to the problem of prostitution by establishing the world's most fabulous brothel.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
It's a sex comedy and it's an odd one. The central theme is that these women are being taken advantaged by these men. In the recreations, the women are gleefully being 'taken advantaged'. It's not a funny joke. The choppy nature of the film doesn't help. It's one vignette after another and few are even mildly funny. I don't care about Josephie and Benjamin. The plot does sometimes take interesting turns, but I still don't care. It's an unfunny sex comedy.
Some may consider films such as these "bad", and theoretically I guess they'd be right. But if you're even a passing fan of the British comedy tradition, this movie brings together an intelligent and funny script by the brilliant Denis Norden, and a large cast of inspired and famous British comics. Its outrageous premise offers scope for first-class humour, great inter-textual pedantry, and witty social commentary. In the tradition of the Goons, the film is a biting and staggeringly funny indictment of Victorian moralism and piety, which was as apt in the post-war decades as it is in the politically-correct eco-religious world of today.
If you object to seeing middle-class hypocrisies (not to mention none-too-innocent maidens) skewered, don't see it. Otherwise, I can heartily recommend it.
If you're a fan of British humour, you need this in your collection, alongside the Goons, the Pink Panther, Blackadder, Monty Python, Spitting Image and the collected writings of Oscar Wilde, Spike Milligan and PG Wodehouse.
Grand stuff.
The plot, such as it is, is mainly advanced by extraordinarily implausible coincidences and bizarre happenings, and it's about as silly as you can get.
It's a formula movie, and it sucks. Unfortunately, it isn't quite awful enough to be 'so bad it's good'. It's just excruciating.
However, it was written by Denis Norden, who may have no idea about plot or character, but is a fantastic quip-writer. There are scores of literary and historical jokes: one- and two-liners, many of them screamingly funny if you're familiar with the works of Wilde, Dickens, Trollope, Galsworthy, Tennyson et al, and with historical people like Emmeline Pankhurst and Dr Livingstone. Jokes as good as these are wasted on this awful film.
First I wanna say that I am not a picky "watcher" and I am fully aware of what others think of this movie (thats it's really bad), I wont say that it's a well thought up movie but I will say this:It's quite a unique movie, that's for sure. One of the reasons why I gave it a six is that in spite of all the bad press i found it to be intriguing, the plot may be a little strange but it was interesting to watch.
Now, I don't know what The "message" was supposed to be, it is about this girl that wants to save "fallen girls" (if I'm allowed to say that), but the movie also contains a lot of unnecessary partial-nudity. So one wonders, was it supposed to support anti-prostitution in a comedic way or was it just about entertaining the crowd by "showing some skin" on television? My opinion about the film is not based on whether it is meaningful or even tasteful. It's based on the fact that it was amusing for me to watch, a light read, one might call it, well if it was a book that is.
Six out of ten stars is pretty high but this is how I rate: 5 is OK (watchable) and ten is incredible. So six to me is good enough to want to watch again. I can't really explain why I found it so appeasing, I guess you're just gonna have to watch it yourselves.
The "bad" things about the movie were that it was a little confusing at times, like if there were scenes missing or something. As I mentioned before it was a little strange. I really can't judge the acting, since I don't usually watch old movies. They spoke a little different in movies back then.
That's really all I have to say about this film.
Did you know
- TriviaThe second of four times that Thorley Walters played Watson, each with a different actor playing Sherlock Holmes. He previously did so in Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace (1962) starring Christopher Lee and later did so in The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (1975) starring Douglas Wilmer and Silver Blaze (1977) starring Christopher Plummer.
- Quotes
Sir Francis Leybourne: [the Attache is sobbing] I thought you people were supposed to be inscrutable?
Chinese Trade Attache: Please, Sir Francis, China doesn't want any more opium.
Sir Francis Leybourne: Oh, do be sensible. You chaps have already lost one war with Great Britain about this.
Chinese Trade Attache: But to force us to buy it...
Sir Francis Leybourne: Well, you signed a treaty agreeing to!
Chinese Trade Attache: Your gunboats were right up our Yangtze!
Sir Francis Leybourne: No use getting hysterical, Mr Feng.
Chinese Trade Attache: Then let me appeal to our friendship; those happy weekends I used to spend at your townhouse; your late wife was always so kind to me. More than kind. She...
Sir Francis Leybourne: She was an eccentric about the inferior races. My dear fellow, I've put a lot of money into that opium plantation. Damn it, it's hard enough to get the Indians to harvest the stuff. Blasted natives! You pay them two pounds ten a year and they're useless.
Chinese Trade Attache: If you could see what the opium does to our people; they lie about the streets like dead flies.
Sir Francis Leybourne: Well, get them to use a little self-discipline, man. Self control - works wonders. Look at the English!
- ConnectionsReferenced in The Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart (1970)
- How long is The Best House in London?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 37m(97 min)
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1