MovieChat Forums > Last Orders (2002) Discussion > How come nobody has heard of this movie?

How come nobody has heard of this movie?

posted 15 years ago by piglet44
7 replies | jump to latest

This is a gem of a movie.Beautifully acted and scripted, with a sad and touching feel to it. How come it's so underrated?

[–] jayraskin1 15 years ago

I'm afraid that most people under 30 today only see comic book and farce movies. A movie with characters of this depth is something they can't understand.

Add to this the fact that the movie moves along at a leisurely pace with multiple complex flashbacks. Under 30s are use to movies that drive straight ahead at full speed from one explosion to the next. They're easily confused and when confused, they get distracted.

Also the movie is rather sad, despite having many hilarious and joyous scenes. Today's young people are only sad when they can't get a signal on their cell phones. They really don't understand or believe in the sadness that comes from reflection on life.

Also, people under thirty are not familiar with the work of any of the actors, who have not been in big budget hits for a couple of decades. Only Michael Caine with two tiny five minute roles in the latest Batman movies might be known to some of them. Some of them might know Bob Hoskins from "Roger Rabbit," but even that is over 20 years old now, so only those above 30 are likely to have seen it or remember it.

Lastly, I think the British accents might be a problem for many people in America. While I was raised on Monty Python and The Avengers, I'm not sure if many younger Americans can easily understand the heavy accents that they probably find strange.

[–] subotica500 15 years ago

I don't think you can blame the accents. Sexy Beast featured the same accents but that was a (minor) hit.

http://www.last.fm/user/Nearco

[–] b_redraven 15 years ago

I'm not offended by the "most people under 30" comments, even though I'm 25, and have enjoyed many movies unlike the ones you assume I'd be more interested in for years, but the comments do seem alittle mean.

It's rather like saying all people over 30 can only like well written stories as long as there's no violence or explosions. Believe me, I know that's not the case!

Generalizations like that are never a good idea, in my experiece!

Otherwise, I caught this movie on tv the other night, and was immediately drawn me when I seen Helen Mirren, Michael Caine and Bob Hoskins in a scene together. I've always enjoy their respective works, and was unaware they had done a movie together. The scene that that really touched me though, was the one in the field with Ray Winstone remembering being told he was adopted. Even though Lenny (David Hemmings) was being a nasty prat, he kept the memory to himself. To me, it was a more honest decision, rather than a overly emotional relevalation scene, which I'm guessing Hollywood would have instisted on.

Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution. - Mae West

[–] CitrusWithFuschiaTrim 14 years ago

Today's young people are only sad when they can't get a signal on their cell phones.

LOL. Gross generalisations FTW!
_____
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here.

[–] TheCineSinge 12 years ago

Speaking for everyone under the age of 30 are we?

Please, I'm 18 and I thought this was an absolutely brilliant film. I don't need explosions to keep me entertained, not when we have films of this standard.

Also, Michael Caine is one of my most beloved actors. He was good in the recent Batman films but nothing compared to the likes of Get Carter or The Italian Job.

I don't think you're giving us young film fans enough credit...

[–] james_cella 14 years ago

I think that upon its release it appealed to certain people - those who had read the Man Booker Prizewinning book, those who love the actors cast in it, those who like small British films, those who understand stories in which everyone isn't toothsomely pretty or among life's "winners". It received a lot of attention at the time, but many people agreed that the multiple narrator/non-linear storytelling style of the book would be hard to capture on film. ( Nothing much really happens in the book and the characters live primarily within their own thoughts.) I was among those who love the book and feared for its integrity when it became a film. How would such gently but sharply drawn characters be portrayed?

Nevertheless, I enjoy the film. Every actor gives an excellent portrayal, despite my finding it hard to reconcile their appearances with the way I saw them. It resonates emotionally

[–] rozklad 11 years ago

I'm one who came to the book from the film, and I'm amazed at how well this "difficult" novel was transferred to the big screen. I think you are being too dismissive of younger viewers, jayraskin1. If this has more appeal for older folk, it's because of its subject matter, not its depth.

Its obscurity is more likely to do with its "Englishness" and the difficulty of the London accents for some; though I'm very impressed with the number of warm comments here from across the water, so maybe I'm overestimating this.

Perhaps a more likely reason (and not so far mentioned) is because it's quite a "blokey" film, about a group of male friends and how they interact over the years. That's why it resonates for me, but I can understand it being less appealling for many female viewers.