What's Good for the Goose

If you can get over the shock of seeing Norman Wisdom playing someone other than Pitkin without the ill fitting suit and cap, then it's not as bad as you'd expect. The speeded up title sequence was a nice idea but unfortunately it goes on far too long and outstays it's welcome. Confusingly there's a credit attributing the singing of the theme to Norman himself, but that version is at the end of the film.

Simply, Norman plays a somewhat timid banker who has a fairly hum drum life, married with children. He ends up having to go to the executive conference held at a seaside resort. On the way he picks up two teenage girl hitchhikers who end up opening his eyes to the fun filled world of the late 1960's. There's visual appeal in the shape of Sally Geeson (sister of Judy) who once said the most embarrassing thing she ever did was the nude scene on the beach in this film.

For the genre, a lightweight swinging sixties comedy it's enjoyable. Features "The Pretty Things" in a psychedelic club scene. Groovy Man!

Hopefully I can get the attention of another fan of the film, although looking at all the negative reviews of it I somehow doubt it possible. Anyway, here goes. Is it me or is the bedroom scene with Sally G cut when compared to the version Channel 5 shown, late at night, sadly over 20 years ago????? As a teenager I remember being shocked by her going topless in bed with old Norman but that segment isn't on the DVD or any of the vids. If someone can clarify this I'd be most grateful!(surprised nobody else has noticed this). I do like the film and I am a big fan of Norman (Seen him Live twice), but I think the reason it works for me is that I don't expect him to be Pitkin.I really do see him as a different character here, unlike most of his other more popular films. Reading between the lines, most of the 'reviewers'(Who slate the film) seem to want him to be like his stereo-typical clumsy little fool.Wasn't he allowed to break out of that millstone for just one film?????????? Where the film probably winds people up is when Norman slips in little bits of Pitkin into the Mr Bartlett character; this is confusing some disappointed fans who expect the rest of the usual package and get a Peter Stringfellow mix.

WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE is an unwieldy little comedy effort, shot in Southport of all places, and starring Norman Wisdom in a very different role to those earlier in his career. Although this is a comedy, there's no slapstick from the rubbery star here; instead, he plays a rather sad individual, a guy who's having a mid-life crisis and subsequently falls in love with the teenage Sally Geeson.

There were a lot of May to December films coming out around these years but WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE is one of the oddest. It's not really what you could call an entertaining movie, as it just sort of floats along aimlessly for a very long time. What it does provide is an eye-popping time capsule of late '60s fashions and attitudes, with the 'free love' movement in particular explored in depth.

Wisdom remains a likable character throughout and Geeson isn't bad either in an early role. The film was put out by Tigon, a company who typically specialised in cutting-edge horror fare, and written and directed by none other than Menahem Golan years before he founded Cannon.

I remember this film being made as a little boy, so it always holds a place in my affection. I remember being surprised they took two days to film a scene that only lasted seconds in the final edit. i met Norman Wisdom and Sally Geeson on set and I still remember offering him a sweet and then signing his autograph.

All the family attended the premiere and I enjoyed it including the memorable theme tune. I don't suppose it will hold any interest to anybody anymore apart from the odd Norman Wisdom devotee in Albani (where I believe he was big!) and I can't say I've seen it in thirty years. From what I've read it wasn't regarded as a particularly good film by the critics. But, I would like to see it one more time if only to bring back the memories of that little boy I was in 1969.

This is a good movie , but it its a little let down with the cliché hippies that don't look convincing.Also the club where the hippies dance don't look realistic enough,better lighting and more grass smoking may have helped. The hippies in it remind me of the ones in carry on camping .The story itself though is great, the plot is about a man who as become very robotic within the system of life. Working in a office, family , dinner , sleep , work , family etc.He gets sent away on a works conference by the seaside , and he starts to see live again with the help of two girls he meets on the way.The film shows how sex looked very innocent and uncomplicated in that era ,but also how naive they can look now.If you are a fan of Norman i would recommend it.