Freaktana
A Major Disappointment
Dynamixor
The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.
PiraBit
if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
christopher-underwood
Wonderful is the obvious but apt accolade for this strangely obscure little gem made literally at the peak of what became known as 'Swinging London' or more generally the 'Swinging Sixties'. It looks absolutely fabulous with superb costumes and stunning sets. As for locations, I eventually tracked down the reservoirs at West Molesey as the primary source with Beesborough being the primary one and I assume the associated pumping station was that used both for the workplace scenes and the later rather manic cycle machine scenes. I had never realised the close connection between the Beatles and Roman Polanski but writer Gerard Brach (Cul de Sac, What? Fearless Vampire Killers and the film under discussion) seems to have been the main link, although actor Ian Quarrier and director Joe Masot were apparently big on the 'scene' during 1967 and 1968. George Harrison made considerable contributions to British cinema of the time but his more extreme Indian influences to this soundtrack are probably the only let down. Fortunately director Massot has assembled an alternative cut of the film using the original Wonderwall sessions and this makes for a much more acceptable viewing. Jack MacGowran, much favoured by Samuel Beckett but also appeared in Cul de Sac and Fearless Vampire Killers, is perfect in the role of obsessive mad professor cum obsessive peeping tom. Which brings us to Jane Birkin, who doesn't do too much in this (she doesn't even speak) but is 1967/68 London personified. She has that 'look', she can wear those clothes (or not) and moves with a grace that almost takes the breath away. Something between a butterfly and a gazelle. she floats through the film seemingly effortlessly, her role simply to move about with or without clothes and to 'react' to others. Fab film that captures perfectly a moment in time.
bowdenj-1
This film is a piece of pretentious, pseudo-psychedelic crap. It is bad even for the sixties (and, being a child of the sixties, I've seen it all)! As for the soundtrack, George Harrison was right - he didn't know anything about movie music. Of course, all the people who slobber all over anything related to the Beatles will call the soundtrack a work of genius, but it's a perfect match for this dismal attempt at....what? Certainly, Harrison was a gifted guitarist (and Ringo was a pretty good drummer), but not everything the Beatles touched was magic (witness Hey Jude and Let It Be - two pieces of absolute twaddle to which no one would have given a second listen had they been written and performed by anyone else. However, I will say this in defense of Harrison: no one could have written a soundtrack that could have saved this piece of dreck.
Peter Whittle
'Wonderwall' was one of four 'alternative-cinema' films to debut at the newly opened:'CINECENTA' multi-complex off Leicester Square in January 1969. It had previously had its 'World-Premiere' at the Cannes Film Festival in 1968.The 'George Harrison' Soundtrack of Indian Ragas & etc. are the aural sound-sheet of a truly reprehensible plot with dull stupefyingly mind-numbing 'animated inserts'such as Butterflys escaping from a collectors album.The whole film seems to be a 'screen-test' for Jane Birkin.She wears coloured tights,Indian dresses,Sunglasses,& on & on............Jack MacGowran actually seems out-of-place in his admirable interpretation of a stuffy lonely Zoological Professor. The actual idea of a lonely bachelor peeping through a hole in a wall on his beautiful débutante neighbour is brilliant.The film doesn't make enough on this concept alone. The Film is too chic & it retains no style.Jane Birkin is flamboyant & exotic but she doesn't have a single word of dialogue.(Except some gibberish heard when the Professor eavesdrops).I assume this was intentional BUT a bad decision.Not hearing Jane Birkin speak makes her even more Kewpie-doll & a window-dressed mannequin throughout this movie. The 'Word-Cards' that were inserted should really now come out & the Director should issue a 'Director's Cut' taking out all the period 'animated-inserts' & politely asking MsBirkin to NOW add a voice-over in suitable places.Perhaps any additional footage could be restored because the film doesn't hold a strong enough allure.(Except of course la Birkin in nice poses!).
sfried
Well, I just saw a restored print of this at the Screening room. It is a marvelous piece, light and yet moving, filled with wonderful visuals, a great performance by Jack McGowran and a marvelous (and unfortunately out-of-print) score by everyone's favorite Beatle, George. The synopsis above just doesn't do justice to the film. Yes, it's about a daffy old guy who peers in on a lovely young woman living next door, but there's nothing creepy or pathetic about it. In fact, he's actually quite a bit a of a dashing and romantic figure in his own detached, weird way. One of the most notable things about the film is the art direction, done by the band/art collective The Fool. An obscure folk group (sort of a lesser Incredible String Band) they made the most of what was most likely a thin budget by pouring every ounce of energy into creating two amazing sets for the adjacent apartments of the old man and the young model. They are, without a doubt, two of the coolest looking places to live I have ever seen in a movie (I would give my eye-teeth to live in either one of those flats) and they form as much of a part of the main characters as the portrayal by the actors themselves. The old scientist lives in Celtic-Medieval warren, inspired by Pre-Raphaelite design, and the young model lives in a mod Sixties psychedelic/glam environment suffused with overtones of 20's/30's nostalgia. Both apartments then are filled with a yearning for the past and so, the old man becomes no more of a romanticist than the girl, despite his age. He is actually quite dashing in his cape and tuxedo when engaging in some of his later escapades, like some bandit out of a Fantomas picture. No, this movie isn't about a pathetic old guy lusting after a lithe young thing. It's about a few other things more interesting and perhaps more touching, but you'll have to find out for yourself. In any case it's a nice little treat worth finding, if you can.
