Reviews

I just watched this film again last night after not having seen it for many, many years.

It's still a remarkably funny film. The plot IS shoddy; The characters ARE thin: But the film IS very funny.

If you haven't seen it for a while, hire it out and have a laugh.

I first saw this when it aired on television, over here in England, with a rather muted fanfare. We were politely made aware that it was to be shown and (the trailer was very gentlemanly) the viewer should watch the film, should you so wish.

I did. Guinness, McKern, Moreau and Bacall tempted me. At first, and I dread to say this, the double act of McKern and the character Guinness played made me think this was going to simply be a comic treat. I was wrong, but that isn't to say that the humour doesn't hit the mark every single time. The script draws you in and strips away, delicately, your defences and you laugh with the characters in such a way that the little tragedies that begin to appear have you feel something very real, in that special place you have deep inside that is normally reserved for close family and friends.

In the end I was, and still do ever since (no matter how hard I sometimes think I'll try not to), end up watching the credits with tears streaming down my face and smiling through them at a little, beautifully placed jam jar.

Peter Sellers was a remarkable man in many, many ways and I doubt we'll ever see anything quite like him again. He did though have one thing in common with most of those in his chosen field: As a comedic actor he was lively and brilliant, in reality Peter Sellers was a very quiet simple man.

Throughout his life he sought sanctuary and shied away from the bright lights his genius thrust him into. In 'Being There' he plays the man who everyone swarms around, but who is blissfully un-aware of his rising notoriety and his impending thrust to the highest ranks that society has to offer.

We are told that Sellers worked through films he felt nothing for so that 'Being There' could be made by an industry that seemed to care very little for such an un-assuming story. He did it just in time. I think he leaves behind a legacy of films, but it is this that is a gift to us all.

It is a gift given with the helping hands of other brilliant people. Hal Ashby directs superbly. Without his incredible effort I doubt Sellers could have appeared quite so effortless. Kosinski's poetry of simplicity and feeling is without a doubt some of the finest character writing displayed in a medium where fine writing frequently comes a distant second to loud, showy (and meaningless) actions.

Be there.

After it all dies down, I'm thinking how lucky I was not to have jumped to have scored this film when the tide of passion and hype was at it's highest.

When it came out I guess I would have scored it alot higher. I've now watched it three times. The third time seemed so very, very long to be made sea-sick whilst watching three people I really wasn't made to care about run around like headless chickens and make me wish I could climb inside the film and slap some sense into them, or just sit them down and tell them to get a grip.

If anyone asks me to watch it again I'll probably just stand in a corner.

The sequel might stand the test of time better though.

It's a unique scenario. It's a prequel distanced from the source by two more intervening films and 25 years (real time). A hard journey for any small film to make. But with expert tuition and a handsome fan base before during and after conception it's proved to have weathered the storm admirably.

In time we may come to call it "The introductory one", or "The one to show to the boy when he's nice and young, in order to get him into Star Wars at an early age". By this I mean that it seems much more like a children's story than it's sequels do.

I've a daughter aged 8 months and I'm already working out when she'll get to really sink her teeth into it. This is by no means meant in a bad way. The simple elegance of a narrative meant for children is very fashionable right now (see Harry Potter etc) and rightly so.

I watched Star Wars IV when I was 7 and I was 7 again when I sat in the cinema last year, and on the sofa last night. Bliss...

However I find two faults:

Jar-Jar can be left out of any further adventures. & Darth Maul was the better fighter. By far.

Oh yeah and the props were superb (this comment has nothing to do with my brother in law having worked on them).

Simple familiar premise; a small nest of characters; a healthy pace and well judged distance between the funniest moments; get the audience thinking and laughing at the same time.

How many comedy films have failed to execute these basic comedy elements? Too many.

If you only intend to watch films, then watch this film.

If you intend to be in films (comedy and otherwise) watch this film time and time again.

My mother keeps a cassette of this film as a general threat to any film loving person who annoys her. Everything about it stinks.

As such it is a true classic.

Who gave it 10/10? Were you inadvertently watching a good film and accidentally voted for this one?

Everyone involved in the movie making process should be forced to watch at least a small section of this film. It should be an indelible stain on the minds on all that hold film sacred and be revered as the tide mark of the cinematically dire.