The Wild and the Willing

1962
5.9| 1h50m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 16 October 1962 Released
Producted By: The Rank Organisation
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Harry Brown is a somewhat rough and wild university student, who has the ability to win friends, especially the underdogs like Phil who doesn't play 'rugger' and can't sink a whole pint of beer, and African student Reggie. He also has a way with the girls....

Genre

Drama, Romance

Watch Online

The Wild and the Willing (1962) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Ralph Thomas

Production Companies

The Rank Organisation

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.
Watch Now
The Wild and the Willing Videos and Images

The Wild and the Willing Audience Reviews

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring
Steineded How sad is this?
SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.
TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.
JohnHowardReid 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!
writers_reign For some reason this Room At The Top clone has eluded me up to now, not that I missed much. The parallels are striking; 'working class' lad slightly out of his element when thrown into contact with a class above his own, involved with two women, one 'nice' girl his own age and one older married woman. For Joe Lampton read Harry Brown (Ian McShane) and for local government read local university. There's even a nod to Joe Lampton marrying upwards via Harry's schoolfriend, also on campus who has snared Jeremy Brett's scion of a sweet tycoon. In referential terms Harry Brown is like a prototype of Jimmy Porter albeit some six years after Look Back In Anger, and even more bizarrely he comes off as a somewhat neutered Porter lacking the vitriolic pen of John Osborne to round him off. The cast is interesting to say the least, Paul Rogers unusually wooden, Johnny Briggs sporting a Welsh accent that fits where it touches, a barely recognizable John Hurt with the timbre already there but little hint of the fine actor he would become but all of these are dwarfed by the finest acting of all by the tragic Virginia Maskell. A curio at best.
Tinlizzy 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.
Marco Trevisiol 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.