Happy-Go-Lucky (15)

I have a fundamental problem with this film. I didn't care about the main character or what happens to her. Maybe it's just me or maybe it's because Poppy is the product of an ageing, male, middle class writer/director's imagination. I think the problem with filmmakers like Leigh is that it's possible for them to indulge themselves with gimmicky ideas and no-one ever tells them if they don't work . I mean, can somebody please tell me what the flamenco class was about? Okay, it is quite funny - another chance to see Poppy's 'crazy' dress sense - and the teacher is quite interesting ,but what is the point? No jobbing writer could ever get away with a script like this. When you have to jump through endless hoops just to get the chance (if ever) to pitch, you have no choice but to rewrite and rewrite and cut those beloved little ideas that come to you in the wee small hours after a couple of JDs. Otherwise, if someone does ever spare you a few minutes to read your work, they won't get past page ten. Of course Leigh doesn't have to worry about that kind of discipline. Perhaps he should remind himself of the days before he was onto such a dead cert before he'd even started writing a script! Or perhaps he should just move over and give some new talent a chance.

Cloying and naive.

I went to see what was advertised as a hillarious British Comedy....apparently a friend took his dog into the cinema...and the next day the dog left a suicide note. What a load of garbage it turned out to be. Great if you run out of Ennema.

what a whole lot about nothing. she is sooo annoying. absolute crap, not even funny.

If you like and understand the point of Mike Leigh films you will like Happy Go Lucky, If you don't understand him as a director you will hate it. I think this explains the divide in opinion here

Disappointing. Poppy is a great character but most other characters (especially the driving instructor) are stereotypes, two-dimensional figures without depth or character and we don't get any insight into them. There is hardly any development of anyone. This film is a slice-of-life story, and nothing really happens. There is a worryingly sexist interpretation possible here: Poppy shows the first development in her personality after she finds a nice boyfriend. Oh dear.

I quite enjoyed this snapshot of humanity and human nature.. It is a typical Mike Leigh film, with perhaps a touch of Jane Austen. Some of the charactes were slightly caricatured. The driving instructor and tramp recall Leigh's earlier film "Naked". I like the style of the film, a mixture of Ozu and Renoir. My favourite sequence in the film is at end, with that beautiful distancing Mizoguchi-like crane shot of the women in the boat on the lake, absorbed into that deeper nature that contains all of life.

Trite, banal sript, boring and a waste of time . What is Mike Leigh doing?

Bardgepole . The longer the better.

The main point is that the kid who is bullying, the driving instructor, and the tramp are the possibly the same person at different stages of "development". And only when they open them selves up will they find happiness. The kid, was on the right path drawing the picture, fingers crossed he will be ok, too late for the driving instructor, he tries to open up but he cant, he tries to spy on poppy, he shouts out his feelings in a rage of anger, but still drives off in a storm. The tramp is too far gone he did not open up in love, (was he not blabbering on about a lost love?) he had lost the ability to be open, to communicate, to accept help from poppy-Thus descending in utter chaos. I guess it is a kind of metaphor of love and openness, and how strongly people can react against it, if they become battle weary. Poppy represents youth, she is eternally hopeful, and always open and self giving. But some people just cant accept that gift.