Interesting but ultimately unmoving drama (with quirks) has the title-named character, a rich writer who lives in plushy comfort, unable to get over his guilt of having money. When Charlie visits his Northern haunts, where the streets are filled with potholes and the surroundings match the sky--all in gray--we wonder, "Why is he so obsessed with his early poverty?" and "Why can't he get on with his life?" Director-star Albert Finney doesn't give us much to go on (or maybe you have to be British to understand the symbols inherent in British society) and most of his film feels like a put-on. Liza Minnelli has a small part as an American secretary, and she occasionally pushes her kooky "Americanisms" too far; however, though the role isn't much, Minnelli has a strange, slightly zonked/slightly exotic presence, and when she performs in a low-key she's appealing. As Mrs. Bubbles, Billie Whitelaw got most of the acclaim, but it's Liza we remember. As for the much-talked about finale, I thought it profound in its fantastic way, but, like the rest of "Charlie Bubbles", it exists to please and understand itself, leaving the rest of us on the outside looking in. ** from ****
14 Reviews
Better than I remembered
JohnSeal22 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A recent re-viewing of this semi-autobiographical drama helmed by Albert Finney provided me with an opportunity to reassess a film I had long dismissed as a vehicle for kooky and generally annoying co-star Liza Minnelli. Thank goodness I gave it a second chance, as my memories of Liza with a Z's domination of the proceedings proved very wide of the mark indeed! Finney plays the titular Bubbles, a northern lad who's made good and relocated to the Big Smoke, where he lives in isolated glory and drives a gold Bentley with a vanity license plate. Charlie takes his secretary Lottie (Minnelli) oop north to revisit his old stomping grounds and spend some time with his son Jack (Timothy Garland). There are two pitch perfect scenes in the film: the first on the drive up the motorway, when Charlie and Lottie pick up a traveling serviceman (Alan Lake, beknighted husband of Diana Dors) on his way home on leave; and the second when Charlie tries to bond with Jack by taking him to a football match. Charlie's purchased seats in what we would now call a 'luxury box' and plies his son with popcorn, soda, and other treats, but the lad presses his nose against the window and would clearly prefer to be on the terraces with everyone else. The two exchange nary a word, but it's an incredibly powerful and moving scene. Thanks to Shelagh Delaney's screenplay, the film provides an honest, unvarnished look at the contrasts between northern and southern England--contrasts that persist in similar fashion to this day. If you can overlook Ms. Minnelli's relatively brief appearance, you'll find rich rewards herein.
the miscasting of Liza Minnelli is inexplicable
christopher-underwood11 January 2019
I understand that there was a real problem getting this film a theatrical release and that it is more a mid-sixties film than a late 60s one, not being released in the UK until 1969. I can understand the reluctance of distributers. With the best will in the world and considering that this may have been a heart felt effort to produce a European style thought provoking drama, it is hard to see this as anything other than a misguided and pretentious, vanity project. It starts disastrously with a reunion with a working class chum (who over does it enormously) with whom because he is now rich and famous somehow cannot relate. Plus the unforgivable homoerotic messy food prank in the posh restaurant. Things go from bad to worse, I don't know whether Shelagh Delaney's script was scrapped or that this drivel really was hers, either way the only saving grace are those fantastic Lancashire city and landscape shots. The views of what I assume to be the Manchester ship canal an added bonus, as for the rest, no thanks. Oh and the miscasting of Liza Minnelli is inexplicable, she is dreadful.
Slow but endearing - akin to a Pinter play
musickrev30 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Warning: Mild spoilers
"Charlie Bubbles" is a curiously appealing film where very little happens but all that does is more than enough for the lead character. Finney plays a wealthy successful writer whose implied literary observational skills have declined into a kind of passive voyeurism. Not just sexual, although Finney's jaded response to his student secretary Liza Minnelli's seduction creates about the most passionless encounter you will see on screen, but Finney's ennui extends to series of encounters with friends, employees, his son and his ex-wife. The 'bubble' motif extends throughout the movie, as Charlie's life plays out behind the window glass of his Rolls, in a private box at a soccer match or gazing dispassionately at the TV screens of his home security system. The movie creates a moving portrait of a man who 'has it all' and yet has nothing real anymore, and the performances by all the actors are uniformly excellent and completely convincing, revealing more layers of complexity than usual. The movie is as British as a song by The Jam, and a viewer having a good knowledge of the post-war decline of England, the North-South divide, and the perennial class struggle will get more out of it.
"Charlie Bubbles" is a curiously appealing film where very little happens but all that does is more than enough for the lead character. Finney plays a wealthy successful writer whose implied literary observational skills have declined into a kind of passive voyeurism. Not just sexual, although Finney's jaded response to his student secretary Liza Minnelli's seduction creates about the most passionless encounter you will see on screen, but Finney's ennui extends to series of encounters with friends, employees, his son and his ex-wife. The 'bubble' motif extends throughout the movie, as Charlie's life plays out behind the window glass of his Rolls, in a private box at a soccer match or gazing dispassionately at the TV screens of his home security system. The movie creates a moving portrait of a man who 'has it all' and yet has nothing real anymore, and the performances by all the actors are uniformly excellent and completely convincing, revealing more layers of complexity than usual. The movie is as British as a song by The Jam, and a viewer having a good knowledge of the post-war decline of England, the North-South divide, and the perennial class struggle will get more out of it.
What's it all about, Charlie?
mark.waltz31 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Who he is and who he used to be come together to guide who he believes he should be.
The official feature debut of a megastar in the making has overshadowed the legacy that this film should have: for its leading title character (Albert Finney) and not for one of the supporting players, no matter how notable Liza Minnelli is. Finney, having gone from working class to upper middle, is divorced from Billie Whitelaw, and beginning an affair with Minnelli (his secretary) begins to ponder what his life really is about. Location footage and some closeups of real people on the streets gives a gritty realism to remind Finney of what his life could have been but doesn't seem to awaken him to anything but gloom.
Given special "and introducing" credit for Liza bemoans the fact that she'd already won a Tony Award, performed with her mother on stage and TV and was considered a fashion icon. That's like saying that the film debuts of Mia Farrow and Barbra Streisand that year introduced them. There's no denial that Liza is a quirky but well deserved star, definitely fresh and a change of pace for the decade to come. It's hard to dish her no matter what she does as the effervescent person she is always pops through.
Finney is understated, perhaps undirecting himself, but he's also focused with a weird style of editing that jumps into pieces of a situation, paraphrasing ten minutes of activity down to 30 seconds. Whitelaw gets a much more complex part, world weary and too tired to put up a fight, yet forced to remain "up" so she can take care of their son. Colin Blakeney is excellent too, but the film overall is one notch up from those kitchen sink dramas of a decade before that confuse reality for entertainment. The scene where Finney finds Liza's wig in his bed will have certain viewers in stitches.
The official feature debut of a megastar in the making has overshadowed the legacy that this film should have: for its leading title character (Albert Finney) and not for one of the supporting players, no matter how notable Liza Minnelli is. Finney, having gone from working class to upper middle, is divorced from Billie Whitelaw, and beginning an affair with Minnelli (his secretary) begins to ponder what his life really is about. Location footage and some closeups of real people on the streets gives a gritty realism to remind Finney of what his life could have been but doesn't seem to awaken him to anything but gloom.
Given special "and introducing" credit for Liza bemoans the fact that she'd already won a Tony Award, performed with her mother on stage and TV and was considered a fashion icon. That's like saying that the film debuts of Mia Farrow and Barbra Streisand that year introduced them. There's no denial that Liza is a quirky but well deserved star, definitely fresh and a change of pace for the decade to come. It's hard to dish her no matter what she does as the effervescent person she is always pops through.
Finney is understated, perhaps undirecting himself, but he's also focused with a weird style of editing that jumps into pieces of a situation, paraphrasing ten minutes of activity down to 30 seconds. Whitelaw gets a much more complex part, world weary and too tired to put up a fight, yet forced to remain "up" so she can take care of their son. Colin Blakeney is excellent too, but the film overall is one notch up from those kitchen sink dramas of a decade before that confuse reality for entertainment. The scene where Finney finds Liza's wig in his bed will have certain viewers in stitches.
Excellent, under-rated movie
gsygsy13 October 2014
This excellent film is about the effects of displacement, of being a fish out of water. Working-class Charlie Bubbles has ascended from his humble origins to become a successful writer. He has clearly not handled the transition well from within, but it's hardly surprising when there are so many hurdles to overcome in the world outside of himself. The story would have been familiar to a lot of people in Britain in the 60s, as the first generation to benefit from the post-WW2 welfare state came to adulthood. CHARLIE BUBBLES nails this more effectively than any other film I know. Playwright Shelagh (A TASTE OF HONEY) Delaney's script is full of acute observation; the acting is marvellous, the cinematography (by a young Peter Suschitzky, now better known as David Cronenberg's DOP) noticeably European, the charming score (by Misha Donat - Mr Suschitzky's sister) a nod to to the work of Georges Delerue and Nino Rota. Indeed, the movie as a whole leans more towards New Wave and Fellini than the realistic school in which Finney made his name as an actor. Here he is also the director - his one and only feature film in that capacity - and a very creditable achievement it is too. How CHARLIE BUBBLES reads to people unfamiliar with its social and historical background, I don't know. For me it is one of the finest British films of the sixties, but it somehow gets overlooked in the enthusiasm for THE LONELINESS OF THE LONG-DISTANCE RUNNER, A KIND OF LOVING and of course Saturday NIGHT AND Sunday MORNING. They are all fine films, but so is this one. Re-assessment in its favour is long overdue.
Mostly remembered as Liza's first film, this is worth your time
Capboy22 September 1999
"Charlie Bubbles" actually won Billie Whitelaw a Best Supporting Actress award from the New York Film Critics circle back in 1968, but it is mostly remembered today as Liza Minnelli's film debut. She's in it for about a third of the running time, and it's an assured comic performance, quite different from her later screen personas. Albert Finney's direction and performance are fresh and intriguing, and Whitelaw deserved her accolade--she walks off with the last third of the film. You'll either love or hate the ending.
Amazing! I wish Mr Finney had directed more films...
k-comm3 April 2010
I think it's a classic existentialist movie, very much of the European school. Man can never be truly happy or satisfied, with what he's got or with what he gets even if all his ambitions and dreams come true.I think Albert Finney has done an amazing job. It takes true guts and real skill to make a film like this and 'get life' out of it without resorting to fist fights, car chases and shootouts. I love the small moments, like where he puts the eyelashes on his sons lip to make a 'moustache', or when his wife takes the tea cup and his acting when he reaches for it. Billie Whitelaw looks super-sexy in the film and her performance is beautiful. Her gaze at him when he's tucked in bed said more than a million lines of dialogue could. I wish Mr Finney had directed more films, if his debut as a director was this good, imagine what would have come after a few more films. Aah we'll never know...
one of finney's finest
stuhh200122 February 2002
Although the apparent unhappiness of Finney as a successfull, and rich writer might seem difficult to accept, think of all the things you thought of as beyond you as a kid. Some of the people reading these words are making a lot of money, live in a beautiful house, have a beautiful, handsome, wife, husband, and dread each new day. Some of it is good old chemical deppression, and some of it is, who the hell knows. That Finney, a working class kid, realized this at such a young age makes me respect him even more than my admiration for him as an actor. The film I feel looks back to the post WW2 Italian existential movies where very little happens. Life is almost slow motion wandering around. Witness Finney's pitiful relationship with his son and his complete lack of interest in his legal an financial affairs with his lawyers in the opening scene. The cast is wonderful. I'm sure the idea of Liza Minelli as his assistant was laughed at. Liza, playing with British pros? Are you kidding? But it works. Billie Whitelaw was born for the movies, and is incidentally Samuel Beckett's favorite actress. She has premiered many of his plays. That Julia Roberts is a superstar, and few people know who Billie Whitelaw is, says something about "something". As a personal aside, one of the great supporting character actors, the late Colin Blakely, who plays Finney's failed sidekick and I, met in front of a London theatre. I told him I came all the way from the US to tell him how wonderful I thought he was. "Did you see my show tonight", he asked. "No sir, I haven't had a chance yet", I replied. He quickly turned away, and walked in a different direction!!!!
K Garage
oldted-045848 February 2019
Not the masterpiece it first seemed to be but unmissable nevertheless.
MOscarbradley5 March 2020
A few unwelcome scatological moments of surreal humour not withstanding, Albert Finney's only film as a director, "Charlie Bubbles", remains both a remarkable period piece and one of the most imaginative British films of the sixties, perhaps not the masterpiece I first thought it to be, (it was my best film of the year), but unmissable nevertheless. Finney made it in 1968, from an original screenplay by Shelagh Delaney, a time when the Kitchen Sink was no longer fashionable and a new kind of New Wave, typified by films like Nicolas Roeg and Donald Cammell's "Performance" and Richard Lester's "Petulia", was coming into play. This is certainly good enough to make you wish Finney had directed again.
He plays a working-class writer who has made it big, (he drives a Rolls and his books have been turned into films), and the film is set over the weekend he drives North and back to his roots with his unofficial secretary in tow, (a very good, if unlikely, Liza Minnelli), to see his nine year old son, (a first-rate Timothy Garland), who lives on a farm with Charlie's ex-wife, (a terrific Billie Whitelaw). Not much happens and at times Delaney's screenplay is a little too Pinteresque for its own good, but it's also a richly observant picture of Britain at a particular moment in time and is greatly enhanced by the superb cinematography of Peter Suschitzky.
He plays a working-class writer who has made it big, (he drives a Rolls and his books have been turned into films), and the film is set over the weekend he drives North and back to his roots with his unofficial secretary in tow, (a very good, if unlikely, Liza Minnelli), to see his nine year old son, (a first-rate Timothy Garland), who lives on a farm with Charlie's ex-wife, (a terrific Billie Whitelaw). Not much happens and at times Delaney's screenplay is a little too Pinteresque for its own good, but it's also a richly observant picture of Britain at a particular moment in time and is greatly enhanced by the superb cinematography of Peter Suschitzky.
A film about a state of mind stuck in the past
samnaji-153832 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The IMDB description "A married writer has an affair with his secretary" is about as accurate as saying the "Mona Lisa is a painting of some woman". I mean it's not wrong, but it is completely misinterpreting what the film Charlie Bubbles is about. Charlie does have an affair with his secretary, but it is just one scene to emphasize a plot point. The film is about trying to find meaning in life.
My interpretation is that it is about unrequited desire to escape. To escape one's past, to escape from people judging you (the meeting of an old flame and her family in a café), to escape from guilt, to escape from people wanting money from you. To escape, but not having the will power to achieve it, resulting in little or no satisfaction with anything.
Charlie Bubbles has achieved the sort of lifestyle all his friends and fans aspire to. He is rich but the money does not afford him happiness. He gets into funny japes with an old friend but that affords him little respite. Right at the start of the film his accountant suggests he moves abroad for a year to pay less tax, but Charlie asks why can't his company, instead of himself, register abroad? Charlie wants to get away but is bogged down by his inability to do it. He has a housekeeper who treats him more like she is his mother than an employee. Instead of just firing her he fantasies about shooting her. He cannot get rid of her because he fears the guilt that will come from it.
There is a scene when he goes to a football match with his son. The excitement turns to boredom as neither father or son engage with each other or the game. They are just there because it's something to do. Similarly with the sex scene. He is having sex with a beautiful young carefree woman, but it affords him little satisfaction. Later, we can see he still has huge affection for his ex-wife but cannot muster the energy to win her back or become a full-time dad. Money is not a problem. It is inclination, the lack in the meaning in life, that is the issue.
There was a telling scene when his old school friend is also stuck in the past, unwilling to move out of the town that is slowing dying economically speaking, but unlike Charlie Bubbles, he feels content. He knows his own mind and is happy with his lot. When he criticises the hedonistic lifestyle of London, Charlie does not defend it. He says nothing. He simply does not care enough to argue.
At the end when Charlie is floating away in the balloon, that is the conclusion to his desire. He wants to just escape to anywhere, it does not matter where. Like his namesake he just wants to float free like a bubble, but he knows he cannot. He will sooner or later land, back to a past, back to a state of mind he cannot escape.
I think is brilliant, it said so much with so little. Then again it could be a film about a rich man having an affair with his secretary. Keep up the good work IMDB person.
My interpretation is that it is about unrequited desire to escape. To escape one's past, to escape from people judging you (the meeting of an old flame and her family in a café), to escape from guilt, to escape from people wanting money from you. To escape, but not having the will power to achieve it, resulting in little or no satisfaction with anything.
Charlie Bubbles has achieved the sort of lifestyle all his friends and fans aspire to. He is rich but the money does not afford him happiness. He gets into funny japes with an old friend but that affords him little respite. Right at the start of the film his accountant suggests he moves abroad for a year to pay less tax, but Charlie asks why can't his company, instead of himself, register abroad? Charlie wants to get away but is bogged down by his inability to do it. He has a housekeeper who treats him more like she is his mother than an employee. Instead of just firing her he fantasies about shooting her. He cannot get rid of her because he fears the guilt that will come from it.
There is a scene when he goes to a football match with his son. The excitement turns to boredom as neither father or son engage with each other or the game. They are just there because it's something to do. Similarly with the sex scene. He is having sex with a beautiful young carefree woman, but it affords him little satisfaction. Later, we can see he still has huge affection for his ex-wife but cannot muster the energy to win her back or become a full-time dad. Money is not a problem. It is inclination, the lack in the meaning in life, that is the issue.
There was a telling scene when his old school friend is also stuck in the past, unwilling to move out of the town that is slowing dying economically speaking, but unlike Charlie Bubbles, he feels content. He knows his own mind and is happy with his lot. When he criticises the hedonistic lifestyle of London, Charlie does not defend it. He says nothing. He simply does not care enough to argue.
At the end when Charlie is floating away in the balloon, that is the conclusion to his desire. He wants to just escape to anywhere, it does not matter where. Like his namesake he just wants to float free like a bubble, but he knows he cannot. He will sooner or later land, back to a past, back to a state of mind he cannot escape.
I think is brilliant, it said so much with so little. Then again it could be a film about a rich man having an affair with his secretary. Keep up the good work IMDB person.
Movies are 'life' with the boring parts taken out....
sdohbc19 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Alfred Hitchcock said that "movies are life with the boring parts taken out." Perhaps he did not see "Charlie Bubbles." While this film seeks to show the shallowness of a rich upper class life it actually shows the shallowness of movies about boredom. The main character is supposed to be a well read author. This writer never writes anything; the viewer is free to make what they will of his blank stares at the world around him. Is he thinking some deep thoughts? Who knows? There is a kind of documentary feel about the film. Not a good documentary feel. They had all the elements of a good movie here, good acting, enough money to move around, adequate technical skills...yet nothing seems to happen. The main character is bored, the actors are bored, and the audience ends up being bored. As I watched this dreary parade of life's humdrum problems unfold episode after episode I wondered how the plot would resolve the situation.
When Charlie woke up one morning and looked out the bedroom window to see a hot air balloon I knew the film was over. Any viewer who did not realize the end was near was alerted by the happy-go-lucky music on the soundtrack as Charlie rushed to the balloon to end this tedious film.
While some might view this laborious work as a question about the 'meaning of life' others might well ask, "Why make such a long film if you have nothing to say?"
(p.s. Liza Minnelli may have started drinking after watching her big seduction scene in this film.)
When Charlie woke up one morning and looked out the bedroom window to see a hot air balloon I knew the film was over. Any viewer who did not realize the end was near was alerted by the happy-go-lucky music on the soundtrack as Charlie rushed to the balloon to end this tedious film.
While some might view this laborious work as a question about the 'meaning of life' others might well ask, "Why make such a long film if you have nothing to say?"
(p.s. Liza Minnelli may have started drinking after watching her big seduction scene in this film.)
A bad writer's screenplay about a successful, good writer. It's a sort of curse, innit.
fedor820 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
A bad writer should never try to do a movie about a good, well-known writer. That's like a jinx, or ironic tomfoolery, or whatever you wanna call it. In fact, a bad writer shouldn't write anything, period. Obviously.
In a Finney documentary this movie was referred to as a commercial flop, then the narrator proceeded to mention something about how important good promotion is, and that this movie didn't get it. Certainly Finney had complained that the movie failed because of this. Not because it stinks: that had never occurred to him as a possibility. Or in this case a definite 100% reason why it flopped.
Two things. First, this movie didn't deserve a good promotion, in case it never got a proper one. The studio must have realized that Finney delivered an egg and refused to dig their financial hole even deeper so they just gave up on it. Second, that's certainly a feeble excuse for why the movie flopped. There is no story, and it's quite boring most of the time, plus it has no point to make. The only things going for it are the era in which it was made and Liza Minnelli whose cheeriness doesn't suit the film at all (yet helps it anyway, whatever little it can). Yet even this advantage only materialized decades later, after this movie gained significance (if we can call it that) for its 60s mood i.e. Historical value.
What actor-director Finney tried to achieve here was the laid-back "realism" and tone of the French New Wave combined with a bit of then-innovative/new English kitchen-sink drama. What I'm saying is, he pretentiously tried to film an arty drama, one of those films only festival hipsters can get wet over, which neatly explains why there is no plot. "Writer visits his old town and ex wife." That's it. There's nothing more than that. Nothing. Their interaction is uninteresting, nothing happens. This is worse than watching grass grow because while grass grows various bugs in it kill each other. That's something. This is nothing. No bugs, nothing at all. Just Mancunian grass.
It's so boring that whoever wrote the synopsis didn't even bother to listen to what was being said: the description here states that Finney is married. He isn't. He is visiting his ex wife hence Minnelli doesn't play a mistress, as she is described.
Very nice opening credits transport very well the mood of the late 60s. (I don't mean the bloody student riots, I mean the overall atmosphere. To me the late 60s aren't (just) about whiny, spoiled, clueless, naïve, middle-class students egged on by Kremlin's propaganda and their Marxist professors, trying to stir trouble in the West. To me that era represents something else.) Unfortunately, that's where the good stuff begins and immediately ends. The following 20 minutes is some pointless rubbish, with Finney and his annoying/dumb/dull friend being drunk and daft. The "food fight" is complete and utter nonsense: it's cringe cinema, not "rebellion". Completely irrelevant to the story, utterly boring, unfunny, hence 100% useless and drab. So far the movie's been quite bad. Will it improve?
No. Because afterwards there's an odd section with Finney acting like a Bond villain, standing in front of a bunch of surveillance screens, being all grumpy, while observing nothing happen. (Minnelli talking to the drunk slob is literally yet more of nothing.) Apparently, Finney's character as a writer earns millions upon millions upon millions (working for British TV, hilarious), so he can afford to install such surveillance, at a time when this was very expensive. Nor are we told WHY he has it. It's just there, to make the film more "arty".
Then it turns to a road movie... in which, you guessed it, nothing happens. A boring military character approaches Finney and Minnelli for no apparent reason, and for no apparent reason they take him along. But not before a family, or whatever, enter the diner, some unknown/irrelevant characters who say nothing remotely interesting and very little that helps the non-existent plot. In fact, the entire "dialog", if we can call it that, is random and meaningless. If anyone ever aimed to write a flop, intentionally, this is how they would have done it. Maybe this film was a tax write-off or something, and Finney was trolling us all? Not an impossibility, considering that the opening scene is a conversation about finance and evading taxes...
Then in the car Minnelli places her head on Finney's shoulder while the military guy touches her hair. Totally absurd. No, I have no idea what the hell's going on, but that's been known to happen while I waste my time on bad movies devoid of plots.
Meanwhile, Finney is constantly grumpy for whatever reason, almost expressionless. Perhaps he underestimated how stressful directing a movie was (especially when you're also in it), even if it is just a tax write-off, so he just ended up looking grumpy throughout the shoot, on the screen and possibly off it too. This doesn't exactly help the already badly conceived film. If the script is rubbish, there's no plot, the protagonist is one-note, and the director is unhappy with the workload - then there's no hope left, is there.
Even when he takes Minnelli's bra off, he is grumpy and unmotivated. Is this guy suicidal? If so, we certainly get no explanation for it, nor any concrete hints later on. Nor are we informed whether he started an affair with Liza at the hotel or whether this had been already ongoing. I certainly wasn't able to tell. But hey, if the movie prefers not to tell us anything, and that includes a story and all the details a story entails, there's little I can do about it, aside from press STOP. But I didn't wanna do that because I was curious if the writer of this claptrap actually dared go the entire distance without telling us anything and with nothing happening. I wanted to know just how bold this lazy amateur was.
He did dare.
How come everybody recognizes Finney? He plays a writer not an actor.
Then CB ends with a spontaneous trip in a balloon. How "arty". Godard would have been proud.
Or not. Godard would have criticized the movie for lacking "revolutionary zeal" and for having "too much plot, which is so passé and bourgeois". So really, this movie is neither good for film fans nor for hipsters. It's a tax write-off. It's meant to be unappealing.
In a Finney documentary this movie was referred to as a commercial flop, then the narrator proceeded to mention something about how important good promotion is, and that this movie didn't get it. Certainly Finney had complained that the movie failed because of this. Not because it stinks: that had never occurred to him as a possibility. Or in this case a definite 100% reason why it flopped.
Two things. First, this movie didn't deserve a good promotion, in case it never got a proper one. The studio must have realized that Finney delivered an egg and refused to dig their financial hole even deeper so they just gave up on it. Second, that's certainly a feeble excuse for why the movie flopped. There is no story, and it's quite boring most of the time, plus it has no point to make. The only things going for it are the era in which it was made and Liza Minnelli whose cheeriness doesn't suit the film at all (yet helps it anyway, whatever little it can). Yet even this advantage only materialized decades later, after this movie gained significance (if we can call it that) for its 60s mood i.e. Historical value.
What actor-director Finney tried to achieve here was the laid-back "realism" and tone of the French New Wave combined with a bit of then-innovative/new English kitchen-sink drama. What I'm saying is, he pretentiously tried to film an arty drama, one of those films only festival hipsters can get wet over, which neatly explains why there is no plot. "Writer visits his old town and ex wife." That's it. There's nothing more than that. Nothing. Their interaction is uninteresting, nothing happens. This is worse than watching grass grow because while grass grows various bugs in it kill each other. That's something. This is nothing. No bugs, nothing at all. Just Mancunian grass.
It's so boring that whoever wrote the synopsis didn't even bother to listen to what was being said: the description here states that Finney is married. He isn't. He is visiting his ex wife hence Minnelli doesn't play a mistress, as she is described.
Very nice opening credits transport very well the mood of the late 60s. (I don't mean the bloody student riots, I mean the overall atmosphere. To me the late 60s aren't (just) about whiny, spoiled, clueless, naïve, middle-class students egged on by Kremlin's propaganda and their Marxist professors, trying to stir trouble in the West. To me that era represents something else.) Unfortunately, that's where the good stuff begins and immediately ends. The following 20 minutes is some pointless rubbish, with Finney and his annoying/dumb/dull friend being drunk and daft. The "food fight" is complete and utter nonsense: it's cringe cinema, not "rebellion". Completely irrelevant to the story, utterly boring, unfunny, hence 100% useless and drab. So far the movie's been quite bad. Will it improve?
No. Because afterwards there's an odd section with Finney acting like a Bond villain, standing in front of a bunch of surveillance screens, being all grumpy, while observing nothing happen. (Minnelli talking to the drunk slob is literally yet more of nothing.) Apparently, Finney's character as a writer earns millions upon millions upon millions (working for British TV, hilarious), so he can afford to install such surveillance, at a time when this was very expensive. Nor are we told WHY he has it. It's just there, to make the film more "arty".
Then it turns to a road movie... in which, you guessed it, nothing happens. A boring military character approaches Finney and Minnelli for no apparent reason, and for no apparent reason they take him along. But not before a family, or whatever, enter the diner, some unknown/irrelevant characters who say nothing remotely interesting and very little that helps the non-existent plot. In fact, the entire "dialog", if we can call it that, is random and meaningless. If anyone ever aimed to write a flop, intentionally, this is how they would have done it. Maybe this film was a tax write-off or something, and Finney was trolling us all? Not an impossibility, considering that the opening scene is a conversation about finance and evading taxes...
Then in the car Minnelli places her head on Finney's shoulder while the military guy touches her hair. Totally absurd. No, I have no idea what the hell's going on, but that's been known to happen while I waste my time on bad movies devoid of plots.
Meanwhile, Finney is constantly grumpy for whatever reason, almost expressionless. Perhaps he underestimated how stressful directing a movie was (especially when you're also in it), even if it is just a tax write-off, so he just ended up looking grumpy throughout the shoot, on the screen and possibly off it too. This doesn't exactly help the already badly conceived film. If the script is rubbish, there's no plot, the protagonist is one-note, and the director is unhappy with the workload - then there's no hope left, is there.
Even when he takes Minnelli's bra off, he is grumpy and unmotivated. Is this guy suicidal? If so, we certainly get no explanation for it, nor any concrete hints later on. Nor are we informed whether he started an affair with Liza at the hotel or whether this had been already ongoing. I certainly wasn't able to tell. But hey, if the movie prefers not to tell us anything, and that includes a story and all the details a story entails, there's little I can do about it, aside from press STOP. But I didn't wanna do that because I was curious if the writer of this claptrap actually dared go the entire distance without telling us anything and with nothing happening. I wanted to know just how bold this lazy amateur was.
He did dare.
How come everybody recognizes Finney? He plays a writer not an actor.
Then CB ends with a spontaneous trip in a balloon. How "arty". Godard would have been proud.
Or not. Godard would have criticized the movie for lacking "revolutionary zeal" and for having "too much plot, which is so passé and bourgeois". So really, this movie is neither good for film fans nor for hipsters. It's a tax write-off. It's meant to be unappealing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
