The Wild and the Willing (1962)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

This movie's entertainment assets can be summarized on one hand: Attractive location photography, mostly on the campus of London University (Ernest Steward); the climbing the tower sequence, which is put across with a fair degree of excitement (despite the fact that the whole thing is utterly incredible -- many viewers will notice that there is a flagpole on the tower to which the flag could easily have been hoisted); the presence of the lovely Denise Coffey in the cast (unfortunately she has only one tiny scene plus a couple of all-too-brief glimpses of her ride in the Rag procession); and finally, Catherine Woodville who, wouldn't you just know it, has by far the smallest role of the three female principals.Now for the bad news: The script is a compendium of all-too-familiar university clichés. None of the characters ever get down to any serious study. If there were any brilliant ideas in Harry's essay, the audience was kept in the dark. In fact, the characters seem to spent all their time drinking, playing, horsing around and talking, talking, talking! Just about every character in the film is a self-centered, one dimensional introvert, focusing exclusively on his or her own petty, trivial "problems". The central character, as interpreted by Ian McShane, is, as he himself admits, a total bore -- yet the scriptwriters and director focus on him relentlessly (not that the other characters are much more interesting). By cutting only half of McShane's scenes, the film could easily come down to 73 minutes. Then by taking the scissors to Virginia Maskell and Samantha Eggar, plus the simple expedient of deleting all the unconvincingly hearty opening scenes, the film could easily level just 63 minutes. At that length it would make a just passable support. In other words, a good movie to come late for! On the other hand, 114 minutes of this rubbish? Someone has got to be kidding!

I saw some of this film being shot around Lincoln Cathedral, an area not condusive to great film making. The film is important because of the debut of three future stars. Firstly the brigadier's daughter Samantha Eggar (older half sister of the also beautiful Toni) who went onto fame in The Collector and, for U.S. audiences, Dr Dolittle. Faded from view pretty quickly. Secondly Ian McShane who has had a long career, more in the U.K., but has been in some U.S blockbuster miniseries. He is also known to A&E audiences for his portrayal of a lovable, rascally antique dealer in the hilarious "LoveJoy'series. Last but certainly the best known is John Hurt who has proven himself in the International cinema as a highly respected actor and star. Don't watch the film watch the people.

This is the sort of movie that should be so bad it is good. It is just bad, period. Notable only for being the debuts of some good actors who do the best they can with unintentionally parodic material. But the pacing is so slow and the characters so uninteresting my only reaction was to sit watching, stupefied, as it just went on and on.This 'angry young man' film was brilliantly parodied by Harry Enfield in NORBERT SMITH: A LIFE which I dearly wish I had watched instead.

This film is well worth a look despite it having some weaknesses that stop it from truly being a memorable film. Strangely, the greatest weakness this film has is its central plotline, that being the affair with Harry Brown and the professor's wife. This comes across as melodramatic and somewhat forced while the rest of the film is realistic and absorbing.