This British film clearly is a satire. It may have been funny at one time, and to a specifically British audience of that time, but there's little to recommend it today. Unfortunately, "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" is one of those films made to spoof a specific time and place that loses its appeal once beyond that box. I appreciated especially the more recent comments of some British reviewers who had a similar take on the film. While it may have been quite funny in 1970, its dating to a time and situation less than spectacular in the history of memory relegates it today to a ho-hum film.
The spoofing of British business and politics of the time will resonate with some but not many today. A big jab in the film is its mockery of television and all advertising media for the use of sex to sell any and all products and wares. It was something of an issue in 1970, but today it's old hat and part of the demeaning culture of business that has evolved.
There was very little laughter in this for me, and it soon became difficult to stay interested. By half an hour into the film, its outcome was obvious. Peter Cook's character, Michael Rimmer, was so blasé that he resembled a first-time acting student on stage. The sole character who contributed some humor was Ronald Fraser as party leader Tom Hutchinson.
I very much enjoy British comedy, and I especially like satire. Not all satire must be rollicking with laughter, but it then must be poignant. The first group includes such films as "Doctor Strangelove," "The Great Dictator," "The Importance of Being Earnest," "Ninotchka," "To Be or Not to Be," and "It's Love I'm After." They can be political or social, but they make us laugh. The second group, sans the laughter, is humorous and poignant. It includes such films as "Beat the Devil," "People Will Talk," "The Wrong Box," and "Wag the Dog."
Unfortunately,for "Michael Rimmer," the film is dated and had a narrow audience of appeal in the first place. Its plot is weak and it tries to cram too much social criticism into the story. Another reviewer (Prismak10) from the U.K. nails it. He or she says, "As a satire it works if you know the politics of the time and the social history of the era " Well, I know both and I see the satire. But there's little humor and interest remaining in this film in the 21st century.
Today, I think the number of viewers who might find this film interesting or entertaining would be very small. For most people, it likely will fast become boring.
The spoofing of British business and politics of the time will resonate with some but not many today. A big jab in the film is its mockery of television and all advertising media for the use of sex to sell any and all products and wares. It was something of an issue in 1970, but today it's old hat and part of the demeaning culture of business that has evolved.
There was very little laughter in this for me, and it soon became difficult to stay interested. By half an hour into the film, its outcome was obvious. Peter Cook's character, Michael Rimmer, was so blasé that he resembled a first-time acting student on stage. The sole character who contributed some humor was Ronald Fraser as party leader Tom Hutchinson.
I very much enjoy British comedy, and I especially like satire. Not all satire must be rollicking with laughter, but it then must be poignant. The first group includes such films as "Doctor Strangelove," "The Great Dictator," "The Importance of Being Earnest," "Ninotchka," "To Be or Not to Be," and "It's Love I'm After." They can be political or social, but they make us laugh. The second group, sans the laughter, is humorous and poignant. It includes such films as "Beat the Devil," "People Will Talk," "The Wrong Box," and "Wag the Dog."
Unfortunately,for "Michael Rimmer," the film is dated and had a narrow audience of appeal in the first place. Its plot is weak and it tries to cram too much social criticism into the story. Another reviewer (Prismak10) from the U.K. nails it. He or she says, "As a satire it works if you know the politics of the time and the social history of the era " Well, I know both and I see the satire. But there's little humor and interest remaining in this film in the 21st century.
Today, I think the number of viewers who might find this film interesting or entertaining would be very small. For most people, it likely will fast become boring.