Young and Willing (1962) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Flawed but interesting
Marco_Trevisiol10 January 1999
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.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Youth film, of all those involved, about youth!
RodrigAndrisan1 July 2020
I wanted to see the movie because of Samantha Eggar, very young here, before the movies that made me fall in love with her, "The Collector" and "The Walking Stick". But she has just a small, unrepresentative role. Ralph Thomas made later "Deadlier Than the Male"(1967), a film that I saw many times and that I really liked when I was just a teenager. In this "Young and Willing" (1962) we have also a very young Ian McShane, discovered by me also when I was a teenager in "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium" (1969). The revelation of this film is Virginia Maskell, excellent in the role of a woman who's married to a man who loves her in his own way, without giving her sex. Paul Rogers is also very good in the role of that man, her husband, a professor. A very very young and unrecognizable John Hurt, in the role of Ian McShane's colleague, who dies falling from the Lincoln tower. Not bad, but neither a masterpiece.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better Than You Are Led To Believe
prs-5125 August 2020
I am prompted to offer this review of The Wild and the Willing by what I think is its undeserved user rating on this site. While the film has its shortcomings it does offer some good entertainment for those who enjoy the atmosphere of the play hard-work little milieu of young 1960's university students. The banter and dialogue of especially the first half is good as well as the characters and motivations of many of the leads - the bright angry working class boy who fits right in but is forever feeling guilty about it; the good looking girls seeking that superior male meal ticket while being abruptly dismissive of lesser types wanting their company; the emotionally unsatisfied wife of a cold academic looking for comfort in younger male students and many others. And this is probably where it runs off the rails a bit in the second half with the relationship between the wife and the working class student being rushed and not quite plausible in its sudden intensity given he has been happily dating a young Samantha Eggar. The dramatic finale of the prank is also a little overblown. Overall this site's user rating of 6 is too low for a film that has many enjoyable attributes not least the acting of Ian McShane, Virginia Maskell, Samantha Eggar and others. I would clearly list it in the upper 7's.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
university larks turn sour
didi-53 April 2010
Ian McShane's debut film has him playing a scholarship university student, Harry Brown, who has a high opinion of himself and comes unstuck by taking too many risks.

As a plot, The Wild and the Willing is dated and a bit forced, but the interest these days is in the cast - top billed are Paul Rogers and the ill-fated Virginia Maskell, but we also have McShane (best known these days for Lovejoy and Deadwood), John Hurt (here not really displaying the qualities he would in The English Civil Servant, The Elephant Man, and 1984), Johnny Briggs (Coronation Street's Mike Baldwin), and Jeremy Brett (probably the screen's best Sherlock Holmes).

So the film is watchable and has interest because of its cast, but it isn't really a classic. If you like the usual story of shenanigans at university with a macabre twist, then you'll probably like this. If not, just enjoy some youthful performances from actors you'll know much better from their later work.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
To be fair, there's not a lot else to do in Lincoln, even today...
Xstal10 January 2024
It's the days when university was quite special, where the students that attended liked to revel, a pint of bitter in Ye Olde Crown, making locals squeal and frown, boys and girls were kept apart, not on the level. But like today some found their way to go astray, as their hormones opened other doors for play, on this occasion it's the wife, of a lecturer in strife, who entices Harry through, her porch doorway. More high jinks leads to a climb up Lucy Tower, where poor Phil decides to mimic a rain shower, and cascades down to the floor, his ascent turns into pour, and the life of Harry continues, as dour.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Tame and the Annoying
Tinlizzy5 November 1999
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.
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Mediocre plot despite accomplished actors
howardmorley25 December 2016
Christmas Day 2016 was the first time I saw this film despite my 70 years of age.Was this because British TV networks did not consider this film had enough popular appeal?I enjoyed seeing a young Ian McShane(Lovejoy), Samantha Eggar, John Hurt. Johnny Briggs, (Mike Baldwin in Coronation Street), Jeremy Brett, David Sumner the latter of whom I had not seen since he played Patrick Sullavan in the mid sixties long running t.v.series "The Sullavan Brothers".As to the plot of university students who never seem to do any study but spend their time larking around even finding time to have an affair with a tutor's wife; I found unconvincing.Every undergraduate I have met are kept busy studying their subject, going to tutorials and lectures, writing essays if they are serious using tax payers money, (remember this is 1962 and one could study at University then at the tax payers expense) to fund their study.Even though this was filmed in 1962 which is now 54 years ago, the actors still looked too old!

The script was variable and I awarded this film 6/10 as above average.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Room At The Halls Of Residence
writers_reign31 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
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.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Virginia Maskell
D-C-S-Turner26 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This film deserves a higher rating. The dialogue is crisp and quite exploratory, while Ian MacShane was only 20 when this was made and is miles better than Laurence Harvey in Room at the Top.

But the star is Virginia Maskell, who gives one of the most convincing accounts, not of a bored wife, but of a genuine nymphomaniac, in the history of cinema. It is also a very good portrait of an alcoholic, worth comparing with Margaret Leighton in The Holly and the Ivy.

I have nothing more to say but for some reason am required to go on longer, so I will add a remark about. The weird Paul Robeson ending.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Neither wild nor willing
JohnHowardReid4 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The film is unimportant but the "first time" actors are.
morrowmmm18 July 2002
I saw some of this film being shot around Lincoln Cathedral, an area not condusive to great film making. The film is important because of the debut of three future stars. Firstly the brigadier's daughter Samantha Eggar (older half sister of the also beautiful Toni) who went onto fame in The Collector and, for U.S. audiences, Dr Dolittle. Faded from view pretty quickly. Secondly Ian McShane who has had a long career, more in the U.K., but has been in some U.S blockbuster miniseries. He is also known to A&E audiences for his portrayal of a lovable, rascally antique dealer in the hilarious "LoveJoy'series. Last but certainly the best known is John Hurt who has proven himself in the International cinema as a highly respected actor and star. Don't watch the film watch the people.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed