Festival. Written by Annie griffin who is best known for her channel 4 series 'the book group' (I have to admit at this point that I seemed to have missed that one) and staring familiar faces from the world of comedy shows such as 'green wing', 'Garth Marenghi's dark place' and 'this life'. This film is almost a mock-umentary. It parodies the Edinburgh fringe festival and some of the characters that inhabit this world of shows, plays and street theatre. The first thing to say is too much bagpipes!! I hate them with a passion. But that is a personal thing and no real reflection on the film, which is very good. The best bits of this kind of fly on the wall look at all things fringe like are the bits where the cast are taking the p#ss out of the whole pretentiousness of it all. The comedy-judging panel arguing over whether comedy should or shouldn't get laughs is brilliant. Elsewhere the film is punctuated with great one liners delivered by a huge cast who range from drunk comedians to sex mad journalists, an over enthusiastic one woman performer to a person so famous they don't care and have given up trying. It is in the subtlety of these characters, who were it not for the festival would probably have never met, that the story get it's rich ideas. If you have ever been to the fringe you will recognise the sense of madness portrayed of a city under siege from people from all walks of life convinced they have talent. Some have and go on to bigger things others fall by the wayside. This is a story of these people and of those who have made it but could lose it or in the case of one character hasn't made it after 8 years at the festival. Funny, dark and an insight into human nature alongside creativity. Festival will not be for all, but for those who visit they will come away rewarded. I have resisted giving away the best scene lets just say it happens to the ventriloquist.
33 Reviews
Nicely structured, but clichéd and unsympathetic
paul2001sw-131 August 2006
There's some nice sly comedy in Annie Griffin's film 'Festival', about the Edinburgh Fringe, and an ambitious storyline following numerous different characters, but also a lot of clichés. Now the Edinburgh festival may be one place where all the old clichés are actually true, but they're not leavened here by any true sympathy for the creative process. Watching stuff at the fringe can be excruciating, but it can also leave one gasping in amazement at what can be achieved, and some of the material is pretty professional: by not acknowledging that, this film fails to really earn its right to the cheaper shots. An unremarkable movie.
Wanted to like it more than I did
RockinRog29 August 2006
If you've seen Altman's 'Nashville', you've kind of seen this. It's just the era and backdrop that are different. Substitute Daniella Nardini for Geraldine Chaplin, Mangan or O'Dowd for Keith Carradine and you have the general idea. Griffin's best-known piece, 'The Book Group', also had multiple plot lines, but had time to develop over two three-hour series. In 'Festival', for instance, the plot line with the crazy Canadians had a fantasy quality to it, but didn't seem to be going anywhere. On the other hand, watching Petra staring at a drink, trying not to fall off the wagon, was heart-wrenching, as was the chat-up scene where she realizes as she talks about her job, that she has no real life apart from Sean, and hateful as he is he is all that stands between her and a return to drinking. That was brilliantly done, as was the young actress falling for Sean because she sees him as nobody else does, because she doesn't know his work or how famous he is. I wanted to like this film a lot more than I eventually did. It is worth seeing, but like so many British movies, it doesn't warrant the big screen treatment when a TV series would have been better.
an impossible task
feelinglistless28 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know why I feel so disappointed because really, making a film about the Edinburgh Festival is an impossible task, for the simple reason that every one of us who's been there has had a different experience, and any script which tries to capture everything is going to fail. Just can't be done. Writer/director Annie Griffin has said that she pitched Festival as something akin to Altman's Nashville, and you can absolutely see the influence as the narrative takes in an epic sweep of characters at all levels of the fringe, from the household names to the one woman shows at nine in the morning. Which is problem one - Altman had three hours, Griffin gives us 107 minutes.
When the film works, it's excellent. I loved the story of the three Canadian performance artists, one of which becomes infatuated with the wife of the family whose flat they're renting out for the duration. I loved the girl running the one woman show about William Wordsworth's sister Dorothy. I loved the quiet battle against despair of the famous comic's agent, played with great poignancy by Raquel Cassidy. I loved the documentary style moments that took in the flavour and sounds of the festival creating a good sense of place It's these were the most evocative stories, the ones which I could identify with. A concentration on anyone of these characters, a filter of the story through their experience would have worked really well. By separating out of the screen time amongst fifteen odd characters it feels weaker, unfocused.
What derailed the film and my enjoyment was the slow concentration of the story around the ersatz Perrier award and the politics of the people and the voting. Somewhere in there someone makes an impassioned speech about how the festival used to be about Scandinavian dancing in the streets, but has slow become about an unfunny comedian winning an award. Which is ironic because that's exactly what happens in the film. Just when something glorious happens to the Canadians, we cut away to one comic chasing a bimbo around a hotel room or another having a post coital argument with a journalist and frankly it's just unpleasant. To take the Altman comparison further it's like taking Gosford Park and editing in large chunks of Pret A Porter.
Shame.
When the film works, it's excellent. I loved the story of the three Canadian performance artists, one of which becomes infatuated with the wife of the family whose flat they're renting out for the duration. I loved the girl running the one woman show about William Wordsworth's sister Dorothy. I loved the quiet battle against despair of the famous comic's agent, played with great poignancy by Raquel Cassidy. I loved the documentary style moments that took in the flavour and sounds of the festival creating a good sense of place It's these were the most evocative stories, the ones which I could identify with. A concentration on anyone of these characters, a filter of the story through their experience would have worked really well. By separating out of the screen time amongst fifteen odd characters it feels weaker, unfocused.
What derailed the film and my enjoyment was the slow concentration of the story around the ersatz Perrier award and the politics of the people and the voting. Somewhere in there someone makes an impassioned speech about how the festival used to be about Scandinavian dancing in the streets, but has slow become about an unfunny comedian winning an award. Which is ironic because that's exactly what happens in the film. Just when something glorious happens to the Canadians, we cut away to one comic chasing a bimbo around a hotel room or another having a post coital argument with a journalist and frankly it's just unpleasant. To take the Altman comparison further it's like taking Gosford Park and editing in large chunks of Pret A Porter.
Shame.
Amateurish mess.
newfangled28 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Like the amateur productions this film often lampoons, this is an unappealing mess of story and tone which works too hard to both shock and please. Seemingly modelled on 'Love Actually', we're presented with a bunch of uncomfortably performed clichéd characters who we might sympathise with and enjoy were they not pawns in a project which seems more about showing off the writer/director's spectrum of talents than about entertaining the audience. The tone is horribly uneven - including scenes of a paedophile killing himself and a post-natally depressed mother abandoning her baby (the film's romantic climax!) in the context of light romantic comedy. I'm no prude either, but the high level of desperate-to-shock nudity is the only obvious reason this film is rated 18 rather than 12, again, it ruins the tone. It doesn't feel any edgier or more adult for it, you're just left wondering why someone thought a non-sex based comedy needs graphic shots of masturbation, oral sex and, um, fisting. The person above found the film's lack of resolution as somehow charming or clever. I found it amateurish and misguided.
A festival view of ...the festival!
david-20387 December 2005
Being from Edinburgh and suffering/enjoying the International Festival & Fringe for many years this film was always going to be of great interest to me. I did expect it to be dreadful, as so many UK-produced efforts can be, but actually ended-up enjoying large parts of it.
Edinburgh during the festival can be a strange place for the natives - the city is descended upon by hordes of media-types and desperate actors/comedians/whatever. During this time many locals will simply let out their flats at exorbitant rates and go on holiday thereby avoiding the whole rather disagreeable event.
With Festival you can play 'which celeb comedian is that meant to be' as well as 'which pub are they in' and 'where's that again' - being a local helps and you get the same familiar sense of enjoyment as when reading Ian Rankin's Rebus series (also set in Edinburgh.) The acting is good and there are some genuinely funny moments although the dialogue can be quite weak in places.
By miles, the worst element in this film is the music. It's intrusive, adds nothing to the drama and on occasions completely ruins the scene.
All-in-all if you're not from Edinburgh, Festival is hugely entertaining and will probably make you want to come here for next year's ever - if you need somewhere to stay I've got a lovely flat near the Assembly Rooms...
Edinburgh during the festival can be a strange place for the natives - the city is descended upon by hordes of media-types and desperate actors/comedians/whatever. During this time many locals will simply let out their flats at exorbitant rates and go on holiday thereby avoiding the whole rather disagreeable event.
With Festival you can play 'which celeb comedian is that meant to be' as well as 'which pub are they in' and 'where's that again' - being a local helps and you get the same familiar sense of enjoyment as when reading Ian Rankin's Rebus series (also set in Edinburgh.) The acting is good and there are some genuinely funny moments although the dialogue can be quite weak in places.
By miles, the worst element in this film is the music. It's intrusive, adds nothing to the drama and on occasions completely ruins the scene.
All-in-all if you're not from Edinburgh, Festival is hugely entertaining and will probably make you want to come here for next year's ever - if you need somewhere to stay I've got a lovely flat near the Assembly Rooms...
Festival
jboothmillard28 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The main reason I wanted to watch this film was I recognised many of the actors from great British shows such as The IT Crowd, Green Wing, Spoons and Coronation Street. The film focuses on both the judging of a comedy award, and the performers in small venues who could win it. It is meant to be a black comedy drama about black comedy, but some of it was a little bit more serious, but there were bits you just can't help but giggle at. Also, I like this film because it is so British focusing on the comedy we produce, and a great event, The Edinborough Festival. Starring The IT Crowd's Richard Ayoade as Dwight Swan, I Am Not an Animal's Amelia Bullmore as Micheline, Billy Carter as Conor, Raquel Cassidy as Petra, Spooks' Megan Dodds as Dina, Duncan Duff as Gordon Menzies, Spoons' Tom Goodman-Hill as Dougie, Matthew Holness as Lighting man, Jonah Lotan as Rick, Meredith MacNeill as Mary, Green Wing's Scotland BAFTA nominated Stephen Mangan as Sean Sullivan, Lyndsey Marshal as Faith Myers, Stuart Milligan as Arnold Weiss, Scotland BAFTA nominated Daniela Nardini as Joan Gerard, The IT Crowd's Scotland BAFTA winning Chris O'Dowd as Tommy O'Dwyer, Deirdre O'Kane as Frida Finucane, Dorothy Paul as Micheline's Mother, Lucy Punch as Nicky Romanowski and Coronation Street's (brief) Clive Russell as Brother Mike. It was nominated the BAFTAs for the Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film and the Carl Foreman Award for the Most Promising Newcomer for director/writer Annie Griffin (won the Scotland BAFTA for Best Director), and it won the Scotland BAFTAs for Best Film and Best Screenplay. Good
Well-intentioned but Disappointing
tohu21 May 2006
The Edinburgh Festival deserves a film. It is a strange occasion in a great city, and huge numbers of people around the world have experienced it. It brings its own array of bizarre characters and situations, mixing them with the locals, and then takes them away again just as quickly, until next year when some of them come back for more. If that's not a recipe for some interesting comedy/drama, I don't know what is.
Unfortunately this film fails to hit the mark. It is structured quite well, and I liked the idea of following one venue through the course of its day. The overall atmosphere of the city is well-caught too, on the whole, and people who know Edinburgh in August will recognise it.
But its main flaw is lack of empathy. There are quite a lot of characters, some of whom are quite funny, but very few of whom are particularly likable and attractive. Those who are likable often lack authenticity, and everyone suffers from a lack of depth. The episodic plot is also patchy - some of the events that befall certain characters have nothing at all to do with the Edinburgh Festival and seem almost to have been put in as time-fillers.
To be fair, there are some funny moments and quite a few good lines. But put it this way: If it's on TV and not costing you anything, then by all means watch it. However, I paid £3 to rent it, and by the end I felt it wasn't really worth the money.
Unfortunately this film fails to hit the mark. It is structured quite well, and I liked the idea of following one venue through the course of its day. The overall atmosphere of the city is well-caught too, on the whole, and people who know Edinburgh in August will recognise it.
But its main flaw is lack of empathy. There are quite a lot of characters, some of whom are quite funny, but very few of whom are particularly likable and attractive. Those who are likable often lack authenticity, and everyone suffers from a lack of depth. The episodic plot is also patchy - some of the events that befall certain characters have nothing at all to do with the Edinburgh Festival and seem almost to have been put in as time-fillers.
To be fair, there are some funny moments and quite a few good lines. But put it this way: If it's on TV and not costing you anything, then by all means watch it. However, I paid £3 to rent it, and by the end I felt it wasn't really worth the money.
A delight - treads the line between humour and pathos with assurance
stowbury17 July 2005
An accurate portrayal of the vibe on the streets, boozing in the courtyards and ragbag mix of shoestring productions in dingy halls ranging from high artistic pretension to low comedy. More to the point it's a bloody good film, presenting us with some memorable portraits of aspiring artistes, jaded stand-ups, local journalists and citizens rubbing up against each other in pubs, hotel rooms and rented flats, and of course venues, with some pithy exchanges hurled between floor and stage. The actors are well served by a realistic, witty script that highlights the distinctive backgrounds and foibles of their various characters. They excite your sympathy, affection, pity or distaste even as you laugh. Every scene is either funny or sad, usually both. And the musical soundtrack is exquisite. It's not perfect - there are one or two moments of over-dramatised conflict towards the end that don't ring true, probably driven by some perceived need to pander to commercial expectations. The film should have retained its faith in the bubbling undercurrents which have swept it along so nicely until then, but thankfully it ends on an appropriate note of bittersweet irresolution.
Not funny ha-ha, just funny peculiar.
micdmaloney20 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I would agree with another reviewer that this film treads the line between humour and pathos - but I would qualify it by saying that the film rarely strays either side of the line - making it far less funny than a film about comedians could be, and far less dramatically satisfying than it could have been had it focused on one of the more dramatic story lines which litter it's plot.
Despite a talented cast the film flounders with it's scatter-shot narrative, cacophonous music, utterly gratuitous sexual content, and often childish characterisation.
There are some laughs to be had, but they are few and far between and the movie's downbeat ending (with a broken marriage, several failed relationships and the suicide of a central character) feels at odds with it's attempts at jaunty humour.
The Edinburgh festival is definitely an event worth visiting, but this film fails even to capture the genial, colourful atmosphere of the city during the festival period.
A terrible disappointment, and a squandered opportunity.
Despite a talented cast the film flounders with it's scatter-shot narrative, cacophonous music, utterly gratuitous sexual content, and often childish characterisation.
There are some laughs to be had, but they are few and far between and the movie's downbeat ending (with a broken marriage, several failed relationships and the suicide of a central character) feels at odds with it's attempts at jaunty humour.
The Edinburgh festival is definitely an event worth visiting, but this film fails even to capture the genial, colourful atmosphere of the city during the festival period.
A terrible disappointment, and a squandered opportunity.
Charming...
d_fos16 July 2005
Well-paced, well-plotted, with superlative acting on almost all fronts. Perfectly captures the madness of Festival while still weaving several compelling story lines which, although occasionally tangled, never become irretrievably lost. Although undoubtedly a comedy at heart - its revelations of the comedy scene at Edinburgh's Fringe Festival providing no small amount of material - the movie is, by and large, a sweet-hearted look at love and relationships. There's a lot of soul-searching, some real and revelatory, some self-indulgent and drowned in drink. In the end, with lesser actors and actresses, the film could easily have strayed into maudlin scene-chewing or an emotional morass. Thankfully, however, the sharp script and impeccable acting carries it through to an end less black than the rest of its comedy.
absolutely awful
magicpnyride4 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I really wanted to like this film. A great cast of talented comedians such as Lyndsey Marshal, Stuart Milligan, Daniela Nardini, Stephen Mangan from Green Wing, Richard Ayoade and Chris O'Dowd from the IT crowd, Amelia Bullmore from Alan Partridge, Raquel Cassidy and Tom Goodman-Hill from The Worst Week of My Life, Duncan Duff given a preposterously short and weird part, Matthew Holness from The Office and Meredith MacNeill from Man Stroke Woman. So much talent here, and so badly wasted.
The plot is neither interesting nor funny; the script is boring beyond belief, with the few jokes thrown in being totally lame. Plus the random inclusion of disgusting and/or completely unnecessary scenes such as a priest going after a young boy, Stephen Mangan's genitalia, one of the Irish comedians being f*sted while holding some puppets, you get what I mean. It is just strange. Take it from me just don't bother, I began watching it, thought, yeah not so good but maybe it will pick up, no, an hour in, nothing happens, still no sign of any plot, comedy, I then did something more interesting like watch someone else watch paint dry.
The plot is neither interesting nor funny; the script is boring beyond belief, with the few jokes thrown in being totally lame. Plus the random inclusion of disgusting and/or completely unnecessary scenes such as a priest going after a young boy, Stephen Mangan's genitalia, one of the Irish comedians being f*sted while holding some puppets, you get what I mean. It is just strange. Take it from me just don't bother, I began watching it, thought, yeah not so good but maybe it will pick up, no, an hour in, nothing happens, still no sign of any plot, comedy, I then did something more interesting like watch someone else watch paint dry.
Warning
liz-17314 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this at a preview and it is complete and utter tripe. If I hear one more critic praise this 'film' for 'its depth of characterisation' I will eat my own head. Not good, not good at all. I can say however, that Edinburgh looks fabulous, but then it always does. The story lines are predictable, clichéd, and very dull - throw in a priest/actor with serious misgivings about his vocation, a couple of likely lad Irish comedians, a bit of gratuitous homosexual sex, a ditsy blonde with useless jokes, and a weedy leading lady trying to 'act' and you have a recipe for an absolute turkey. This is one I won't be returning to for the leftovers... it should have left in a car park it certainly doesn't deserve your hard-earned cash. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it.
A rough ensemble comedy that could have been developed fuller but is still fun, energetic and enjoyable
bob the moo14 August 2006
It's that time of year again and Edinburgh is awash with artists coming to perform at the on the fringe of the festival. Among them is Dwight Swan a famous comedian who has rather let it go to his head; his put-upon PA Petra; Tommy O'Dwyer, an Irish comedian who has been at the festival for nine consecutive years without a mention in the comedy awards; a young woman who is staging an one-woman show about Dorothy Wordsworth in the challenging 9am slot; a bubbly "Jewish" comedian keen to do whatever it takes to get to the top and a local BBC journalist with some complex relationships.
From the creator of The Book Group and featuring a host of recognisable faces from British comedy, I was intrigued by this film and initially quite drawn in by its sharp edge, natural feel, laughs and multi-character approach to the narrative. It had energy and it captured the feel of a festival (albeit I cannot speak for the Edinburgh one in particular). This makes for a good start to the film as it sets up lots of characters and also has an affectionate at the types of people and acts at the festival not ever being overly cruel but not shying away from poking fun where it is deserved. This makes for an enjoyable film but not an ultimately satisfying one. As the film goes on it puts more onus on the stories rather than the references and this is where it could have been stronger. Some of the stories are pretty good but the majority don't really hang together that well and are little more than a sense of a time and place rather than being engaging.
Griffin may struggle with this but she does everything else pretty well. The film is well directed and uses the festival itself to good effect. As writer she produces sharp characters who may be easily pigeonholed but rarely in a lazy fashion. The cast respond well to the fun material, although none of them really succeed in developing their characters much further than Griffin had taken them. Ayoade has a simple character and does it well while O'Dowd does a solid "blustering Irishman" similar to his IT Crowd character. Cassidy and Nardini are both impressive and indeed most of the cast turn in solid performances in mostly small roles.
Overall this is an amusing ensemble comedy that benefits greatly from Griffin's own experience on the Edinburgh Fringe. The material doesn't develop much beyond a certain point and does have a rough, messy feel to it but this is not a fault so much as the idea imitating the feel of the Fringe itself. Not perfect and understandable why it didn't ever grab much of an audience but an enjoyably rough comedy nonetheless.
From the creator of The Book Group and featuring a host of recognisable faces from British comedy, I was intrigued by this film and initially quite drawn in by its sharp edge, natural feel, laughs and multi-character approach to the narrative. It had energy and it captured the feel of a festival (albeit I cannot speak for the Edinburgh one in particular). This makes for a good start to the film as it sets up lots of characters and also has an affectionate at the types of people and acts at the festival not ever being overly cruel but not shying away from poking fun where it is deserved. This makes for an enjoyable film but not an ultimately satisfying one. As the film goes on it puts more onus on the stories rather than the references and this is where it could have been stronger. Some of the stories are pretty good but the majority don't really hang together that well and are little more than a sense of a time and place rather than being engaging.
Griffin may struggle with this but she does everything else pretty well. The film is well directed and uses the festival itself to good effect. As writer she produces sharp characters who may be easily pigeonholed but rarely in a lazy fashion. The cast respond well to the fun material, although none of them really succeed in developing their characters much further than Griffin had taken them. Ayoade has a simple character and does it well while O'Dowd does a solid "blustering Irishman" similar to his IT Crowd character. Cassidy and Nardini are both impressive and indeed most of the cast turn in solid performances in mostly small roles.
Overall this is an amusing ensemble comedy that benefits greatly from Griffin's own experience on the Edinburgh Fringe. The material doesn't develop much beyond a certain point and does have a rough, messy feel to it but this is not a fault so much as the idea imitating the feel of the Fringe itself. Not perfect and understandable why it didn't ever grab much of an audience but an enjoyably rough comedy nonetheless.
very very clever
norloll28 August 2006
Unlike most of the other people posting comments here, I really thought this film was brilliant. It's the kind of excruciating, cruel comedy which many people hate but which when it is done well can be brilliant, and I think it IS done well here, although possibly not as well as it is done in Confetti (which has many of the same cast members in it). Anyone who has been to the Edinburgh festival and had a god-awful miserable time (surely more people than admit to it) will recognise the experiences of these various characters and sympathise with their predicaments...... Well, that's all I have to say about the movie, but since IMDb seems keen to encourage verbosity on here I will just respond to the various nonsense comments on the subject of Lottery Funding. It's very easy to slag off a film you don't like and then start crowing on about the taxpayers money that has been wasted on it, but you should remember that 1) it's not taxpayers money, 2) film making is a high-risk business - for every big success there are many many flops, and if it was possible to predict what is going to be successful BEFORE the release of the film, then we'd ALL be in the business and all be millionaires, 3) I'd rather have a film industry which produces some box office flops and some hits, than have NO FILM INDUSTRY AT ALL which is the alternative. There. Is that ten lines yet ed?
God awful. It actually gets worse the more I think about it.
nickmanon1 March 2006
This has to be the worst film of the year. Possibly of any year. (Doubly insulting that it's set in my home town.) What was it supposed to be? Satire? Social commentary? A series of badly written sketches with no discernible story? How anyone can watch this codswallop and not find themselves screaming at the screen is beyond me. And to watch some decent actors struggle with this appalling script was agony.
I have to assume it was some sort of tax dodge for the Scottish film industry. No one with any understanding and/or experience of film-making would surely sanction such utter tripe for creative reasons.
And the director wins a Scottish BAFTA? Who decided that? The same people who funded it perchance? It's no wonder no-one outside of Glasgow takes the 'Scottish Film Industry' seriously if this is perceived to be some sort of pinnacle. The only sensible thing would be to have a bonfire with all existing prints on Calton Hill beside Edinburgh's original disgrace.
Update#1 : I've just read that this unspeakable piece of rubbish also won a British Comedy award beating The Incredibles and Sideways. I think a steward's enquiry is required. Update #2: I've since spoken to a couple of people who were involved in this production and they both reported that "no-one seemed to know what they were doing, and boy does it show. The film made a mere £82,230 at the UK box office (I pray it wasn't released abroad) Great return on the £700K the UK Film Council wasted on it. It's no wonder they're desperately trying to recoup their investment via DVD sales and rental. Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it? Update three (not that I'm obsessed). The comments of D_G below are interesting. I'm inferring that we in the vast majority (and not just on this site) who thought this film had all the artistic merit of raw sewage have somehow missed the point? It's apparently too much to ask of an alleged black comedy to have some er, comedy in it. And the argument that it must be good because Book Club was doesn't wash either. If anything this debacle of a film has shown up Griffin's remarkable paucity of talent. Get real.
I have to assume it was some sort of tax dodge for the Scottish film industry. No one with any understanding and/or experience of film-making would surely sanction such utter tripe for creative reasons.
And the director wins a Scottish BAFTA? Who decided that? The same people who funded it perchance? It's no wonder no-one outside of Glasgow takes the 'Scottish Film Industry' seriously if this is perceived to be some sort of pinnacle. The only sensible thing would be to have a bonfire with all existing prints on Calton Hill beside Edinburgh's original disgrace.
Update#1 : I've just read that this unspeakable piece of rubbish also won a British Comedy award beating The Incredibles and Sideways. I think a steward's enquiry is required. Update #2: I've since spoken to a couple of people who were involved in this production and they both reported that "no-one seemed to know what they were doing, and boy does it show. The film made a mere £82,230 at the UK box office (I pray it wasn't released abroad) Great return on the £700K the UK Film Council wasted on it. It's no wonder they're desperately trying to recoup their investment via DVD sales and rental. Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it? Update three (not that I'm obsessed). The comments of D_G below are interesting. I'm inferring that we in the vast majority (and not just on this site) who thought this film had all the artistic merit of raw sewage have somehow missed the point? It's apparently too much to ask of an alleged black comedy to have some er, comedy in it. And the argument that it must be good because Book Club was doesn't wash either. If anything this debacle of a film has shown up Griffin's remarkable paucity of talent. Get real.
Love it or hate it
glasgow197523 February 2006
This film seems to polarise opinion, either it's hated or feted by the reviewers before me. It's not meant to be a laugh riot comedy, so people expecting that will be disappointed.
However, if you saw the 2 series' of the excellent Ch4 'Book Group' from the same writer/director you will know what to expect. Tragedy, comedy, death, sex - it's all in there. If you liked/loved this film I'd recommend seeking out the series on DVD if it's available. The good news is that it's now in development as a film, the bad news is that at this stage nobody seems to know if it will feature the same characters or has been sold as a concept alone.
The cast are all excellent & it's interesting to see current ch4 'IT crowd' actors popping up before their 'sitcom' debut. Daniela Nardini is a talented actress and it's great to see her on screen again as she seems to have been absent awhile.
A lot has been made of 'explicit' sex scenes in other reviews, personally I find it refreshing that they are there. After all that's life. Stars shag groupies, married people cheat. I'm sick of scenes in otherwise realistic good movies that suddenly feature 'passionate' sex scenes, where the women still has her bra & knickers on & the guy doesn't even get his trousers off! Usually conducted under a sheet that miraculously stays glued over the man's genitals if he eventually does get naked. I know I always wrap myself in a sheet for sex, don't you? lol
However, if you saw the 2 series' of the excellent Ch4 'Book Group' from the same writer/director you will know what to expect. Tragedy, comedy, death, sex - it's all in there. If you liked/loved this film I'd recommend seeking out the series on DVD if it's available. The good news is that it's now in development as a film, the bad news is that at this stage nobody seems to know if it will feature the same characters or has been sold as a concept alone.
The cast are all excellent & it's interesting to see current ch4 'IT crowd' actors popping up before their 'sitcom' debut. Daniela Nardini is a talented actress and it's great to see her on screen again as she seems to have been absent awhile.
A lot has been made of 'explicit' sex scenes in other reviews, personally I find it refreshing that they are there. After all that's life. Stars shag groupies, married people cheat. I'm sick of scenes in otherwise realistic good movies that suddenly feature 'passionate' sex scenes, where the women still has her bra & knickers on & the guy doesn't even get his trousers off! Usually conducted under a sheet that miraculously stays glued over the man's genitals if he eventually does get naked. I know I always wrap myself in a sheet for sex, don't you? lol
A mess of a movie.
ntthfllshllng20 April 2006
The Edinburgh Festival would seem to be an excellent theme for a film, with so much going on in a vibrant, photogenic city. This film, however proves this not to be such a good idea. It is a real mess, it has no focus, instead following several different story lines with no depth or conviction. The characters are ill-conceived and two dimensional, the stories poorly written and clichéd. All this is particularly disappointing giving this is the same writer/director (Annie Griffin) who made the brilliant TV series 'the Book Group'. The whole film has the feeling that was a rushed affair. Potential viewers would be best advised to avoid this film, instead saving the money towards a trip to Edinburgh to visit the festival for real - a far more rewarding experience.
A very dull and unfunny so-called comedy
jezy-23 August 2006
I'm a movie buff and watch movies all the way through even if they aren't that good just to see the complete story. Festival was recently screened on Channel 4's new free movie channel (Film 4 UK) I'm a fan of Stephen Mangan from watching Green Wing so I thought I'd record it and watch it later - I erased the movie from my DVD recorder half way through it was that bad and struggled to make it that far! The story (if you can call it that) is bland, the characters are bland (with the exception of Chris O'Dowd's who plays a good part) Mangan's character is completely unlikeable and totally unfunny considering he is supposed to be playing a successful comedian.
And yes, there is that infamous scene where Mangan displays a (prosthitic) erection, which is shocking and can only have been included for shock value as it doesn't provide any laughs at all.
You have probably gathered that I didn't like this movie much, and you would be correct. I don't know if it improved in the second half as it got deleted after an hour..
This is not a great example of British film making, so if you happen to chance upon it while flicking through the channels - you have been warned!
And yes, there is that infamous scene where Mangan displays a (prosthitic) erection, which is shocking and can only have been included for shock value as it doesn't provide any laughs at all.
You have probably gathered that I didn't like this movie much, and you would be correct. I don't know if it improved in the second half as it got deleted after an hour..
This is not a great example of British film making, so if you happen to chance upon it while flicking through the channels - you have been warned!
One of the worst films I've ever seen... (and I've seen "Troy").
deborah_j_hammond29 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This was awful. A load of complete and utter tripe. No Plot. Too much uninspired acting. Totally overblown and needless overacting; the one amusing moment was spoilt by a gratuitous penis shot. Another moments sees a bout of fisting in a puppet shop. Daniela Nardini, whilst a good actress, evokes no sympathy at all; mostly, i suspect, the fault of the scriptwriters. It's put me off all the actors, Edinburgh, "The Book Group", and any film which comes under the over-generalised moniker of "alternative comedy". I was shocked to hear that this was nominated for an award for Best British Comedy Film (or something similar). For all those judges out there: just because something is "alternative British comedy", it doesn't mean it's any good. A complete waste of money: both the cinema ticket, and the budget used to film it in the first place.
A refreshing and lively British production which lingers in the memory
Normski321 December 2006
This is a rumbustious, rollicking, Altmanesque view of Edinburgh Festival and the comedy fringe. It has a great cast of newer faces but also a fine performance from that old hand, Clive Russell. Skillfully written and directed by Annie Griffin, it is a welcome change from the Hollywood gloss.
Filmed at and around the 2004 Festival it beautifully creates the atmosphere with street shots and sounds from the real Festival interspersed with acts from the main characters. Also there as a judge and awarder of the comedy prize is Sean Sullivan, a comedian who has already made it big and sneers at those who haven't. Played by Stephen Mangan in a character he reprised in Green Wing he is universally loved by the fans and hated by those with whom he comes into contact, particularly his downtrodden PA (Raquel Cassidy). The almost inhuman joke he plays at the award ceremony was repeated in Green Wing in different guise. This is current, British, cringe-making comedy at its most extreme. There are some hilarious scenes, with self-centred comedians / comediennes unable to think about anything but their comedy act (even when performing sex acts) and lots of one liners which guarantee plenty of laughs and an overall cheery feeling despite the underlying despair. As Sullivan puts it "we are engulfed by comedy" The no-hope performances include a one-woman Dorothy Wordsworth act complete with daffodils,(Lyndsey Marshal), the inevitable, rarely sober, Irishman (Chris O'Dowd), the paedophile priest (Clive Russell), and the Canadian troupe lodged in an upmarket mansion occupied by a disconnected wealthy couple totally fazed by the birth of their first child.
The action rapidly shifts across and between these characters, linked by the BBC Scotland art critic, beautifully played by Daniela Nardini, who reports on the scene, interviews the performers and has a place on the panel selecting the prize winner. She pleases no one and beds the Irish comedian in the full knowledge that he is only seeking her support on the prize panel.
The feel can best be described as Gaelic - set in Scotland but with lost of Irish accents and enhanced by background music which is atmospheric rather than intrusive. For anyone who liked Book Club, Green Wing, Nighty night or The Office, this will be a treat
Filmed at and around the 2004 Festival it beautifully creates the atmosphere with street shots and sounds from the real Festival interspersed with acts from the main characters. Also there as a judge and awarder of the comedy prize is Sean Sullivan, a comedian who has already made it big and sneers at those who haven't. Played by Stephen Mangan in a character he reprised in Green Wing he is universally loved by the fans and hated by those with whom he comes into contact, particularly his downtrodden PA (Raquel Cassidy). The almost inhuman joke he plays at the award ceremony was repeated in Green Wing in different guise. This is current, British, cringe-making comedy at its most extreme. There are some hilarious scenes, with self-centred comedians / comediennes unable to think about anything but their comedy act (even when performing sex acts) and lots of one liners which guarantee plenty of laughs and an overall cheery feeling despite the underlying despair. As Sullivan puts it "we are engulfed by comedy" The no-hope performances include a one-woman Dorothy Wordsworth act complete with daffodils,(Lyndsey Marshal), the inevitable, rarely sober, Irishman (Chris O'Dowd), the paedophile priest (Clive Russell), and the Canadian troupe lodged in an upmarket mansion occupied by a disconnected wealthy couple totally fazed by the birth of their first child.
The action rapidly shifts across and between these characters, linked by the BBC Scotland art critic, beautifully played by Daniela Nardini, who reports on the scene, interviews the performers and has a place on the panel selecting the prize winner. She pleases no one and beds the Irish comedian in the full knowledge that he is only seeking her support on the prize panel.
The feel can best be described as Gaelic - set in Scotland but with lost of Irish accents and enhanced by background music which is atmospheric rather than intrusive. For anyone who liked Book Club, Green Wing, Nighty night or The Office, this will be a treat
Misses by about a mile
two-robinsons14 August 2006
I really wanted to like this film for a couple of reasons 1. Annie Griifin did a fine job with the Book Club and 2. It's British. Sadly neither reason proved strong enough for me to be able to overlook Festival's many flaws.
I can only guess that Griffin's original aim was to write a movie where comedy and tragedy were so closely linked that it was difficult to see where one ended and the other began and what better backdrop that the Edinburgh Festival which every year attracts acts from all four corners of the world, who come to entertain and supposedly change their lives? Definitely a strong starting point for a funny, touching and thought provoking movie, unfortunately this ain't it.
For one thing we are asked to focus on far too many characters, assorted comics, bizarre actors and various hangers on who each have a story to tell but no time in which to tell it. As a result they never become anything other than one dimensional characters and unpleasant ones at that. Who is Faith, the actress behind the one woman show about Dorothy Wordsworth? Why has she chosen to do this? Why has she brought it to Edinburgh, what is she hoping to achieve? We never find out. Is Brother Mark a real priest. Why does Petra put up with Sean? Is she in love with his or just too apathetic to do anything else with her life? What's with the Canadian trio whose show touches the audience but who are presented to us as buffoons. And what about the depressed mother who abandons her child in what is presented to us as some sort of happy and romantic love story. Ditto the Perrier Awards which seem to be tacked on as an afterthought or just an excuse to introduce a bunch of stereotypical arty journalists spewing line upon line of bitchy clichés. Lots of questions but no answers and as a result the film added up to little more than an unholy mess.
And then the sex scenes. One commentator actually applauded these graphic and let's be honest gratuitous scenes decalring them to be "real" Well maybe he has been fisted many times on the floor of a puppet shop by a bald punk, I would hazard a guess and say that many of us have not. Guess that means movies like 'Deepthroat' should be regarded as social documentaries rather than porno junk.
I could go on to talk about the nonsensical punch up at the end but what would be the point? Suffice it to say that if this is the way that the UK Film Council is spending it's money then it's no wonder British film industry is in such dire straits.
I can only guess that Griffin's original aim was to write a movie where comedy and tragedy were so closely linked that it was difficult to see where one ended and the other began and what better backdrop that the Edinburgh Festival which every year attracts acts from all four corners of the world, who come to entertain and supposedly change their lives? Definitely a strong starting point for a funny, touching and thought provoking movie, unfortunately this ain't it.
For one thing we are asked to focus on far too many characters, assorted comics, bizarre actors and various hangers on who each have a story to tell but no time in which to tell it. As a result they never become anything other than one dimensional characters and unpleasant ones at that. Who is Faith, the actress behind the one woman show about Dorothy Wordsworth? Why has she chosen to do this? Why has she brought it to Edinburgh, what is she hoping to achieve? We never find out. Is Brother Mark a real priest. Why does Petra put up with Sean? Is she in love with his or just too apathetic to do anything else with her life? What's with the Canadian trio whose show touches the audience but who are presented to us as buffoons. And what about the depressed mother who abandons her child in what is presented to us as some sort of happy and romantic love story. Ditto the Perrier Awards which seem to be tacked on as an afterthought or just an excuse to introduce a bunch of stereotypical arty journalists spewing line upon line of bitchy clichés. Lots of questions but no answers and as a result the film added up to little more than an unholy mess.
And then the sex scenes. One commentator actually applauded these graphic and let's be honest gratuitous scenes decalring them to be "real" Well maybe he has been fisted many times on the floor of a puppet shop by a bald punk, I would hazard a guess and say that many of us have not. Guess that means movies like 'Deepthroat' should be regarded as social documentaries rather than porno junk.
I could go on to talk about the nonsensical punch up at the end but what would be the point? Suffice it to say that if this is the way that the UK Film Council is spending it's money then it's no wonder British film industry is in such dire straits.
A real member of not?
timothy-7616 April 2006
This is a good film. It is a parody of the festival and yet seemingly real enough. there are moments of embarrassment and suggestions that the people in show business are a mixed bunch. BBC people appear to grin and laugh at anything. The film jumps from sub plot to sub plot maintaining an anticipation of what is to befall these people. There is a fine performance of a successfully arrogant comedian who loves to humiliate people. This ghastly well-acted comedian ends up between the sheets with the blonde; is his member real or prosthetic? I think we should be told. I am still in shock. There are too many swear words but that seems to be par for the course these days. And the bagpipe is there but not too much. Everyone is made fun of. The Americans too. I think it will succeed in that it is on many levels: romance, tragedy, documentary, realism, impressionism and ....er..... Edinburgh.
Awful
simonmon23 January 2006
One of the dullest, most poorly written film I have ever seen, give it a miss.
I've never looked forward to the credits of a film with more excitement.
That's all there is to say about this, but I will keep writing because I have to submit 10 lines of text for my review to be accepted.
I wouldn't have bothered because the film doesn't merit it, but I want to try and stop anyone else wasting their evening watching it like I did, so I'll keep on until I make the 10 lines needed. Actually this review is already much more interesting than the film.
I've never looked forward to the credits of a film with more excitement.
That's all there is to say about this, but I will keep writing because I have to submit 10 lines of text for my review to be accepted.
I wouldn't have bothered because the film doesn't merit it, but I want to try and stop anyone else wasting their evening watching it like I did, so I'll keep on until I make the 10 lines needed. Actually this review is already much more interesting than the film.
Boring and Joyless
dhchoare10 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'm at a loss to understand the high star rating (6.3 at last count) that this film has gathered - possibly explained by the IMDb star system being manipulated by cast and crew. This is unquestionably the worst British film I've ever seen (and not in a "so bad it's good" way - it's bad, I mean Gigli bad.) The script is weak, the characters are caricatures, the pace snail-like. Good actors are fed into the maw of the mincing machine of this abominable script like world war one infantry into the teeth of German machine guns. Every time you think their talent may rise above the direction and script it tears another chunk out of their performances and leaves them flailing.
How can a film about one of the most joyful and entertaining events in the world be so joyless and unentertaining. Its arch, self-knowing attempt to weave together the "brittle" world of comedy, the "agony" of paedophile priests, the "emptiness" of wealth and motherhood, the "pure joy" of performance FAILS SO DISMALLY THAT I WANT BACK THE TWO HOURS OF MY LIFE THAT I WASTED ON THIS RUBBISH.
Be careful - this review may make you want to watch the film - it shouldn't - spend the time more productively (I'm sure your toenails need clipping). It commits the worst sin of any film (especialiy about Edinburgh). It's boring.
How can a film about one of the most joyful and entertaining events in the world be so joyless and unentertaining. Its arch, self-knowing attempt to weave together the "brittle" world of comedy, the "agony" of paedophile priests, the "emptiness" of wealth and motherhood, the "pure joy" of performance FAILS SO DISMALLY THAT I WANT BACK THE TWO HOURS OF MY LIFE THAT I WASTED ON THIS RUBBISH.
Be careful - this review may make you want to watch the film - it shouldn't - spend the time more productively (I'm sure your toenails need clipping). It commits the worst sin of any film (especialiy about Edinburgh). It's boring.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
