We'll Take Manhattan (TV Movie 2012) Poster

(2012 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Flash Harry and the girl
Lejink25 February 2012
This dramatisation of the epochal David Bailey / Jean Shrimpton photo-shoot in New York, January 1962 made for an entertaining if occasionally shallow viewing. Presented very much as a confrontation between rebellious youth and fusty conservatism (in the person of their accompanying chaperon, the tyrannical, but brittle and of course much older Lady Rendlesham), Bailey and Shrimpton are portrayed as the advance guard of the whole Swinging 60's movement, a point rather unsubtly made with its references to the Beatles and Mary Quant just before the end.

Whether Bailey's contribution to photography was quite as seismic as the Beatles on music or Quant on fashion is open to debate but as a light, amusing and easy on the eye entertainment, it worked well I thought. Bailey's famous pictures are well recreated, much to the righteous indignation of behind-the-times Rendlesham, and while there's not much more to the piece than their various contretemps, interspersed with Shrimpton's occasional vulnerability, precocity and gaucheness, one has to respect the difficulty in making the fashion world a gripping dramatic undertaking.

The acting of the three leads was very good, Aneurin Bernard especially good as the saturnine, Cockney-on-the-make, "don't call me David" Bailey, Helen McCrory equally so as the ever-so posh Lady Rendlesham and if Karen Gillan sometimes seems too old for the 18 that the real Shrimpton was at the time, she comes through in the end as her character develops some maturity and wisdom. I don't have much of an opinion of the fashion world but saw from this how the whole "supermodel" phenomenon of recent times got its start. Whether that was something I desperately needed to know, I'm not sure but the production did satisfy my curiosity in British popular culture in the 60's and was also one of the rare programmes my wife and I could sit and watch together with equal interest and yes, enjoyment
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Lovely film
bbewnylorac30 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very under-rated film. Aneurin Barnard is magnetic as the confident, stubborn impertinent Cockney photographer David Bailey who crashes through the stuffy British fashion establishment with his talent, passion and determination. Instead of making him a figure of fun, or a caricature, Barnard shows how Bailey sticks up for what he senses is the right way to do his photographs. And he does have excellent instincts. His clashes with the ultra posh Vogue editor, played by Helen McCrory, are emblematic of the establishment fashion world clashing sharply with the gung-ho youth culture in the 1960s. As the model Jean Shrimpton, Karen Gillan has a quiet, doe-like, yet intelligent and otherworldly quality -- she has the X factor that makes her convincing in the role. ''I'm not changing nothing,'' says Bailey. He's willing to put his career on the line to have artistic control. Sure, it IS just about fashion, but it's a beautifully made film made with real passion and heart.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Nice photos
jpsgranville2 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Karen Gillan is pretty and picturesque with a near-perfect clipped Jean Shrimpton accent, but the real drama of the film is between Helen McCrory's stuffy aristocratic sub-editor of Vogue, and the brash, foul-mouthed David Bailey (or "Bailey" as he likes to call himself) as portrayed authentically and confidently by Aneurin Barnard. These two chalk and cheese types are at each other's throats for practically the whole film, so much so that it slightly distracts from the interest of the pictures and the story, well played though the roles are.

Whether Bailey really had this much trouble with his bosses is speculative, but he certainly must have ruffled a few feathers in those early days (and his photos in truth, make for gritty but otherwise surprisingly poor use of Manhattan.) Whether this iconic photo shoot was really the birth of the Swinging Sixties is also open to doubt (Bailey himself has no love of the Beatles who are heard on the radio back home), and the New York of 1960 was probably not quite as clean as the New York of today, but the pictures are nonetheless well captured, and the film is enjoyable as an account of two young people's journey of discovery.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Suitably quirky, the making of a supermodel and a photographer.
TxMike6 July 2021
It was the early 1960s and British fashion photography was somewhat stuck in a rut. Models all did a version of the same poses and photographers used medium format, i.e. 2 1/4" square, cameras. Then along came the new kid with a vastly different style and a Pentax 35mm camera.

Along with him came a very young girl from an agrarian family, pretty and tall but with no experience. Her name is Jean Shrimpton and she is played here by Karen Gillan. While Gillan doesn't that much look like a young Shrimpton she is lovely in her own right and a fine actress.

There is an assignment to be shot in Manhattan. The young photographer is brash and difficult but has a vision he won't abandon even with the prospect of being fired. His vision works and changes the fashion approach thereafter. Shrimpto became a supermodel.

I really enjoyed this, I will watch it again. I was already a big Karen Gillan fan, she can play almost anything. On Amazon Sreaming movies.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Could've been so much better
mcrboro31 August 2020
I enjoyed the movie despite it's foibles hence the rating, but apart from Karen Gillan as Jean Shrimpton who was fabulous, the acting was pretty poor. Bailey's over the top Cockney accent was excruciating and Francis Barber seemed to keep forgetting her posh accent. Putting that aside the story (true in part), scenery and costumes were lovely. The best bit was seeing shots of the original photographs at the end. Although it didn't exactly pay homage to him, David Bailey certainly was an amazing talent.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fun and enjoyable in my opinion
davsak-423683 January 2020
Not bothered about other reviews being on the negative side, I thoroughly enjoyed We'll Take Manhattan. I originally saw it in 2012, and have recently downloaded it from itunes and watched it twice. I thought Aneurin Barnard was cheeky and irreverant as David Bailey, Karen Gillan was funny and lovable as Jean Shrimpton and Helen McCrory was a scream as Lady Clare Rendlesham. I particularly enjoyed the clashes between Bailey and Rendlesham in New York. Karen Gillan wasn't a perfect Jean Shrimpton lookalike, but it would have been hard to find someone with her unique looks.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Styled but Not Delivered
AZINDN3 March 2012
Lordy, what can one say that is positive about this farcical retro-homage to the rise of the 60's first supermodel Jean Shrimpton and bad boy photographer, David Bailey. Swinging 60s London was yet to happen when the stuffy, privileged world of British Vogue was invaded by the street-wise Bailey whose black and white grainy high contrast fashion sense was yet the norm. Shrimpton as depicted by Doctor Who's Karen Gillian is a moon-face, country virgin who falls for the brash photog and is promptly toss to the curb by her screaming, conservative middle class father who sees his daughter as a fallen woman. It was after all the era of the new pill and good girls were still pure until marriage!! Given the assignment to photograph a new spread for Vogue in New York City, Bailey and Shrimp head out with the uptight, Lady Clare Rendlesham (Helen McCrory) to recreate the tired, status quo look which British Vogue had presented since WWII. With lots of head butting between Bailey and Rendlesham over tasteful lady-like poses, camera focal range, and the NYC skyline, Shrimpton sees her budding career going down in flames. Slightly idiotic dialogue is meant to convey the class differences between the blue collar Bailey and Shrimpton and Rendlesham, the "posh" women he finds unwilling to give him the opportunity as the innovative artist with the camera. But the work speaks for itself as contact sheets arrive in London and the situation comes to a head with the expected happy ending. Bailey forever alters British Vogue, Jean becomes the exquisite iconic face of the 60s, and London swings despite the conservative government.

Barnard as confrontational Bailey is heavy fisted but charming, and the venerable Helen McCrory as the staid Lady Tasteful Clare Rendlesham offers a strident performance that is almost laughable. However, it is the woeful Ms. Gillian as The Shrimp who makes the production painful to view. Jean Shrimpton had not evolved into the staggering beauty in the New York photographs that Bailey took of her, but in Ms. Gillian is absent the kind of potential Shrimpton already possessed as a leggy young model. The teased bouffant hair, pudgy eyes, and the askew legs did characterize the early Jean, but Gillian misses on every point thanks to woeful styling. To observe Karen Gillian is to see the Dr. Who companion in 60s "clobber" and the wrong eye shadow applications -- sadly, even the teddy bear photographed better. Perhaps the best thing that can be said about the show is they used David Bailey's actual photographs from the New York shoot of Jean Shrimpton in the closing credits. That was worth sitting though the program.
8 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Much under-rated film
tradingdood7 November 2021
I've been drawn back to watch this film several times. It is a very well crafted film with excellent performances. The pace can be slow at times, but with the excellent sound track this simply adds to the atmosphere. Perhaps it's too "arty" to be main stream, which might explain many of the negative reviews from people who presumably enjoy Pirates of the Caribbean.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Excruciatingly embarrassing to watch - it is THAT bad
nilpost31 August 2021
Terribly childish script, superficial with very one dimensional characterisations; makes the acting look very hammy. Such a shame - they had all that style and locations to play with - such a waste.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
starts slow then slowly picks up pace
cekadah3 December 2012
never heard of these people! so i decided to watch and find out.

first i could not understand some of the dialog due to that inner city British accent - sorry. then the editing jumped around so. the story line is disjointed early on so you cannot get to know these characters. it was as if the director was in a fuss to get to the NYC scenes.

the NYC part of the film is much more interesting and in that the characters shine. unfortunately they must have hired a 10 year old to do the 'tourist' snap shots of the city as those photos were just awful an added nothing to the story. we know they are in 'the big city'.

the two strong willed leads and the insecure model slowly become a bit unbelievable and then the shows over!

will not watch again.
5 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dull predictable movie
mrcharlieribeiro15 February 2021
I love photography, and whilst I knew I wasn't going to be watching a masterpiece, I did hope for something at least interesting and re waking about the legend and his muse. Instead I was offered what I assume we're anecdotes from Bailey's memoir that barely get fleshed out and then moved on to the next obvious bit of storytelling. The acting was pretty average and overall I felt somewhat cheated. Bailey being one of the best fashion photographers in British history, I had hoped for a deeper look at this man. Instead I watched the end credits and wondered if the swinging 60's was actually all hype.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Move along, nothing new here
name99-92-54538919 October 2021
Look, on the positive side, Karen Gillan looks every bit as lovely as you'd expect in every shot. But that's not enough to sustain a movie as light as this!

The basic problem is we all know the story -- young turks storm in, tell those fuddy duddy oldies there's a new sheriff in town, fuddy duddy oldies get their come-uppance as they learn how fantasic the youngsters are at their chosen art. It's Mary Sue fan fiction on the big screen.

And the story doesn't become more interesting by claiming it (more or less...) represents some events that really happened fifty years ago.

A much more interesting story, for example, would have been one focussing on Lady Clare and the top editors at Vogue, with Bailey and Shrimpton as bit characters. Presumably they had been doing things a certain way throughout the late 40s and the fifties; presumably they had reason to believe things were changing in the world of fashion; but what were the conversations around this? A mercenary acceptance that a tidal wave of young money might as well be milked? An understanding that fashion runs in cycles, and the cycle of the next twenty years was going to be rebel without a clue? Terror that they'd never understood what they were doing, but they seemed to have a feel for what people wanted -- except now they no longer had that feel?

A film of a bunch of people sitting around a table, done well, can be riveting -- cf Conspiracy. A movie like that, with the head staff of British Vogue in 1961 puzzling out the situation in which they found themselves, and asking where the world was headed, and why it had changed, from the vantage of fashion -- now that's a movie that has serious potential for being compelling and original!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed