Essentially it's just a boring story about an uninteresting sixth-former who fancies a posh girl. It's about unremarkable people who live in an unremarkable town - it's just too ordinary to be interesting. It's neither funny, insightful nor entertaining.
Hunter Davies' first novel of unrequited teenage lust probably resonates with anyone who was ever young. There was always someone at school or college whom everyone fancied but knew was unattainable. This story could be anyone's story who fancied someone, hardly something remarkable enough to constitute a film so what's the point? The highlight of this picture is Judy Geeson's famous topless scene. She's the unattainable posh girl, our hero's ultimate object of desire and that scene is actually vital to the plot - what there is of it. Whilst a topless Judy Geeson jumping up and down is sublime, it's not enough to justify a whole film.
Besides the dull story what's even worse about this film is that it pretends to be something it isn't. The psychedelic opening title sequence and the inclusion of some swinging sixties bands gives the impression it's going to be a reflection of that scene but this could be set anytime from the 50s to now. 1967 was one of those magical years for music. It was the year of the Summer of Love and Sgt. Pepper. That year the groovy people were listening to Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane and The Doors and shortly to Yes so you might therefore be fooled into thinking that this explosion of creativity also happened in the cinema in 1967. How wrong you'd be.
Unlike the music scene in 1967, the film business was still run by 'the man' to use the parlance of the time. The emerging underground and psychedelic bands were expressing themselves by exploring the boundaries of music whereas cinema was in the business of making money. Clive Donner's film lacks any imagination at all. Unlike his fabulous WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT or even Hunter Davies' wife's GEORGY GIRL, this has none of the spirit of the sixties. It just falls into that bland exploitative band wagon of pandering to youth culture. It's as representative of late sixties youth culture as those awful Elvis films were of rock n roll.
Other than having a topless scene which is actually intrinsic to the story, unlike the gratuitous nudity that would infest our films in the 70s, there's very little to commend this mundane memoir.
Hunter Davies' first novel of unrequited teenage lust probably resonates with anyone who was ever young. There was always someone at school or college whom everyone fancied but knew was unattainable. This story could be anyone's story who fancied someone, hardly something remarkable enough to constitute a film so what's the point? The highlight of this picture is Judy Geeson's famous topless scene. She's the unattainable posh girl, our hero's ultimate object of desire and that scene is actually vital to the plot - what there is of it. Whilst a topless Judy Geeson jumping up and down is sublime, it's not enough to justify a whole film.
Besides the dull story what's even worse about this film is that it pretends to be something it isn't. The psychedelic opening title sequence and the inclusion of some swinging sixties bands gives the impression it's going to be a reflection of that scene but this could be set anytime from the 50s to now. 1967 was one of those magical years for music. It was the year of the Summer of Love and Sgt. Pepper. That year the groovy people were listening to Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane and The Doors and shortly to Yes so you might therefore be fooled into thinking that this explosion of creativity also happened in the cinema in 1967. How wrong you'd be.
Unlike the music scene in 1967, the film business was still run by 'the man' to use the parlance of the time. The emerging underground and psychedelic bands were expressing themselves by exploring the boundaries of music whereas cinema was in the business of making money. Clive Donner's film lacks any imagination at all. Unlike his fabulous WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT or even Hunter Davies' wife's GEORGY GIRL, this has none of the spirit of the sixties. It just falls into that bland exploitative band wagon of pandering to youth culture. It's as representative of late sixties youth culture as those awful Elvis films were of rock n roll.
Other than having a topless scene which is actually intrinsic to the story, unlike the gratuitous nudity that would infest our films in the 70s, there's very little to commend this mundane memoir.