The movie is probably one of the best descriptions of conservative England in the 80's ever filmed. The accurate script, written by great novelist and play writer Hanif Kureishi is absolutely touching, and describe interracial relations is a raw way that I hardly ever seen. The characters are strong and clear, and the actors and actresses may be unknown for us -except Claire Bloom, of course- but some of them are great stars in India. What make the movie so strong is probably the simple but powerful story that tells a lot about human relations. Roland Gift shows himself a good actor as was a good singer in Fine Toung Cannibals. Many scenes are unforgettable, and the end is not only unexpected but shocking. The British cinema in the 80's appeared to pay more attention to people than their government, and "Sammy and Rosie..." is a good example of that. A great film from a team that deserved to be seen, Frears and Kureishi.
9 Reviews
clever, yes, but awfully smug
mjneu5931 December 2010
This biting social/sexual satire from the same team responsible for 'My Beautiful Laundrette' may be too comprehensive for its own good, ranging far and wide over Margaret Thatcher's England but never quite achieving the kaleidoscopic effect it strives for. Racial tension, sexual revolution, recreational drug abuse, and inner city violence (complete with police brutality) are all part of the interchangeable backdrop for its two unlikable title characters: a swinging London couple whose marriage is less open than they'd like to believe. The arrival of Sammy's father, a Pakistani politician with a secret, fascist background, is the hook on which writer Hanif Kureishi hangs his colorful but didactic screenplay (his characters too often trade clever observations and aphorisms instead of credible dialogue). The style of the film certainly shows plenty of kinetic energy, and repeat viewings help bring out some of the depth and compassion in the story and characters. But the self-consciously hip and trendy attitude doesn't sit well with such an unreal depiction of counter-culture idealism: cuddly ragamuffins in a fairy tale, open-air commune.
One of my top ten- I think a lot of people just didn't get it
bpeterlinz12 February 2006
I think that for the movie to make any sense, you have to have some knowledge of what's going on politically, culturally, historically, etc. Most of the detractors I've seen appear not to know the background. It's set during Thatcher's time in England. Sammy and Rosie are a hip urban couple. Their politics are progressive, and they live in a rough, racially mixed area of London. Sammy's father, once an important politician in his home country, has come to the London of his youth to retire; he'd gone to school there. His arrival upsets the balance of earnestness and hypocrisy in their lives.
One of the reasons I love movie is that no one gets off the hook-- it's challenging. People who seem politically correct and sincere have gaping flaws when their surface is scratched.
It's got one of my favorite scenes and lines ever. Sammy's father Rafi visits his great unrequited love Alice, played by the great Claire Bloom, and consummates his love, but she ultimately lambasts him, telling him he could have had her, but instead he must "content (himself) with having introduced flogging for minor offenses, nuclear capability and partridge-shooting into your country."
One of the reasons I love movie is that no one gets off the hook-- it's challenging. People who seem politically correct and sincere have gaping flaws when their surface is scratched.
It's got one of my favorite scenes and lines ever. Sammy's father Rafi visits his great unrequited love Alice, played by the great Claire Bloom, and consummates his love, but she ultimately lambasts him, telling him he could have had her, but instead he must "content (himself) with having introduced flogging for minor offenses, nuclear capability and partridge-shooting into your country."
A blistering attack on Thatcherism.
kyrie246019 April 2000
Stephen Frears intended for this film to make war on the politics of Margaret Thatcher, which he believed were responsible for a breakdown of English society. The film touches upon all of the major issues of England in the 1980s, some would say without covering any of them sufficiently. The figures of Sammy, Rosie, Anna, and Danny (or Victoria, as he calls himself) do their best to come to grips with the world around them, while Rafi and Alice, members of an older generation, can do little more than observe and mourn. Rosie's lesbian friends look at her lifestyle and pronounce: "This is liberalism gone mad", not realizing that she is merely living up to the egalitarianism they espouse. Some would have problems choosing a central character, but I choose Rosie. She is linchpin and catalyst, and at times utterly unreadable.
Story of What Love Really Entails
gab-real3 February 2005
I was turned onto this movie having loved this directors previous film "My Beautiful Lundrette" and this became no exception to S.Fears wonderful ability to create a surreal social climate around the films primary characters.
Sammy is the two timing adulterous husband and Rosie is the cheating wife. They both know of the others affair's yet still can't seem to break off their marriage (a prime example of loving someone but not being in-love) of the two, Sammy wants most for them to "Love each other a Little more" as he state after finding out she recently slept with some guy who mysteriously shows up at his house after saving his father from the middle of a riot.
Oh, the father is also an intricate part of the story. the father(Rafi) comes into S&R life on a whim, stating that "I have some past issues that I need to get away from". Wanting only to rekindle some kind of relationship with is estranged son, Rafi couldn't have come at a worse time. Amidst, a social revolt, a descending marriage and a past that haunts him in the form of a dead worker, that through Rafi's actions had a hand in killing. He becomes vital in the end of the movie (that I won't spoil) and teaches S&R that amongst all the problems they face, it's never to late to try to change and find the true meaning of love.
A great film filled with great dialog and engaging characters
Sammy is the two timing adulterous husband and Rosie is the cheating wife. They both know of the others affair's yet still can't seem to break off their marriage (a prime example of loving someone but not being in-love) of the two, Sammy wants most for them to "Love each other a Little more" as he state after finding out she recently slept with some guy who mysteriously shows up at his house after saving his father from the middle of a riot.
Oh, the father is also an intricate part of the story. the father(Rafi) comes into S&R life on a whim, stating that "I have some past issues that I need to get away from". Wanting only to rekindle some kind of relationship with is estranged son, Rafi couldn't have come at a worse time. Amidst, a social revolt, a descending marriage and a past that haunts him in the form of a dead worker, that through Rafi's actions had a hand in killing. He becomes vital in the end of the movie (that I won't spoil) and teaches S&R that amongst all the problems they face, it's never to late to try to change and find the true meaning of love.
A great film filled with great dialog and engaging characters
Strange, yet interesting
dnroth26 February 2000
This art film and commentary on England's severe adjustment pains after decolonization is at least interesting. It was purposely made to be a decentralized movie, but it seems that it could easily be argued that Rafi is the central character. This makes me wonder if the author's point actually was communicated accurately.
I agree that the sex scene was a bit much and very unnecessary (although I love how it was put sarcastically to a rag-tag chorus singing "My Girl"). However, other scenes make up for that relatively miniscule part of the movie (such as Sammy listening to "Erlking" while Rafi is scared for his life--one of the funniest and most intelligent scenes I have ever seen). The attraction to this movie is the imagery, cinematography, and writing. This movie has attracted a cult following amongst sociologists; they claim that the movie is arguing that postmodern identity formation is more fulfilling that modern identity (don't worry if you're not acquainted with these terms, it's all garbage and only fulfills their egos). Rafi is the most certain about who he is, but this results in him being the most ignorant out of all of the movie's characters. Whatever. I think that they are reading too much into the movie. To me, this movie is an exaggerated attempt to reveal what it is like to be a "former colonized" individual trying to live in your colonizer's country, as well as how the decolonized country (in this case Pakistan) ended up as brutal as the colonizers were (England). It was necessarily exaggerated and therein the absurd and violent scenes created hammers this point home. Would I reccommend the movie? Only if you haven't better things to do, like wash your dishes or play parcheesi. If you want to see some nifty camera work, by all means rent the movie. If you're looking to be easily entertained, forget about it.
I agree that the sex scene was a bit much and very unnecessary (although I love how it was put sarcastically to a rag-tag chorus singing "My Girl"). However, other scenes make up for that relatively miniscule part of the movie (such as Sammy listening to "Erlking" while Rafi is scared for his life--one of the funniest and most intelligent scenes I have ever seen). The attraction to this movie is the imagery, cinematography, and writing. This movie has attracted a cult following amongst sociologists; they claim that the movie is arguing that postmodern identity formation is more fulfilling that modern identity (don't worry if you're not acquainted with these terms, it's all garbage and only fulfills their egos). Rafi is the most certain about who he is, but this results in him being the most ignorant out of all of the movie's characters. Whatever. I think that they are reading too much into the movie. To me, this movie is an exaggerated attempt to reveal what it is like to be a "former colonized" individual trying to live in your colonizer's country, as well as how the decolonized country (in this case Pakistan) ended up as brutal as the colonizers were (England). It was necessarily exaggerated and therein the absurd and violent scenes created hammers this point home. Would I reccommend the movie? Only if you haven't better things to do, like wash your dishes or play parcheesi. If you want to see some nifty camera work, by all means rent the movie. If you're looking to be easily entertained, forget about it.
Challenging, Frustrating and Fabulous!
davidmlandau29 September 2021
Amazing this film has never been released on DVD and it deserves to be. Sammy and Rosie Get Laid is a remarkable and flawed film directed by Stephen Frears and written by Hanif Kureishi who worked together on My Beautiful Launderette. Thatcherism, the struggles of immigrants and oppressed races and Love are the main topics - chaos and excitement exist everywhere. Watching this film in 2021, the themes and scenes of riots and madness are as relevant today as they were in the mid-80's. The cast is great. The film will stay with you. It will haunt you. It will demand repeat viewings - as it has for me since.it's release in 1987. I was lucky enough to find a dvd-r bootleg which is serviceable but WHERE'S THE OFFICIAL DVD RELEASE???
a mess of a movie, head and shoulders above the usual Hollywood dreckarhea
stuhh200128 August 2003
OK, I'm predjudiced. I love English cinema. This might not be the best, but I"ve watched it a few times, and I like it better each time.
Hanif Kureishi the chronicler of Indians, Pakistanis, and their love/hate relationship with England, can't be blamed for all the confusion. Stephen Frears and his editor come in for some of the blame. And I wonder how the actors go about their jobs? I mean, we see the final print, and get some sense of what the writing and directorial team had in mind, But sometimes the actors get only their scene to learn; some later scenes are filmed first, probably to save money on certain location shots, and some of the actors are doing theatre gigs and are only available certain times. You think you have problems? This is basically your average bleeding heart liberal 60's/90's epic. The poor are pushed to violent revolution by an uncaring conservative government that sends them checks every week, so they can dress in garish costumes, march in parades, playing instruments they never bothered to learn... why trouble a child with lessons and practicing when all these hippy darlings want to experience, is the pure joy of a child the first time it is given an instrument? The cast is peopled with the great actors from India who would be better known if they had Anglicised names. I've seen these guys a lot and I apoligise to them, but there's no way my attention deficit mind can remember their names. Anyway, it's a beautiful mess that begins to make sense after two or three viewings.
Hanif Kureishi the chronicler of Indians, Pakistanis, and their love/hate relationship with England, can't be blamed for all the confusion. Stephen Frears and his editor come in for some of the blame. And I wonder how the actors go about their jobs? I mean, we see the final print, and get some sense of what the writing and directorial team had in mind, But sometimes the actors get only their scene to learn; some later scenes are filmed first, probably to save money on certain location shots, and some of the actors are doing theatre gigs and are only available certain times. You think you have problems? This is basically your average bleeding heart liberal 60's/90's epic. The poor are pushed to violent revolution by an uncaring conservative government that sends them checks every week, so they can dress in garish costumes, march in parades, playing instruments they never bothered to learn... why trouble a child with lessons and practicing when all these hippy darlings want to experience, is the pure joy of a child the first time it is given an instrument? The cast is peopled with the great actors from India who would be better known if they had Anglicised names. I've seen these guys a lot and I apoligise to them, but there's no way my attention deficit mind can remember their names. Anyway, it's a beautiful mess that begins to make sense after two or three viewings.
What is this film about?
Facade27 August 1999
Warning: Spoilers
Although I enjoyed watching this film, I am at a loss to explain why, and feel as if I have missed the point somewhat.
Spoiler Alert! Here is the plot, minus the last scene: I have to leave you some reason to watch it!
Sammy (Ayub Khan Din), and Rosie (Frances Barber), are a couple with a particularly "open" marriage, both being free to see a string of lovers, yet spending mealtimes and weekends together.
The film begins when Sammy's father, Rafi (Shashi Kapoor) is returning to England, to see the son he abandoned as an infant. Sammy is seeing his lover, an American photographer with a "W" tattooed on each buttock, (Yes, he asks her to explain it!), while Rosie visits a client (to do with her job) who turns out to have killed himself. At the same time, a police raid on a house in the street ends up with the death of a woman. This sparks a riot. Rafi arrives by taxi, driven by a one-eyed driver, to find the street cordoned off, and Rosie on the pavement. Rafi and Rosie go into the flat, which is filled with a Bohemian collection of Rosie's friends, including two lesbians Rani and Vivia, who seem to be journalists, who know something about Rafi. Sammy arrives, and the three exchange pleasantries until Rosie leaves to see one of her lovers. Sammy asks her not to go, as by this time there is a full scale riot outside. She leaves, and the camera follows her, as she walks through scenes of looting, burning cars, beatings and mayhem, untouched by it all. Rafi and Sammy venture out, and meet Sammy's lover, who is getting rioters to pose mid stoning for her camera, and again are untouched. The next day, Rafi ventures out, to see the woman he stayed with years ago. He is set upon by rioters, and Victoria (Roland Gift) comes to his rescue, and takes him to Anna's house. He invites Victoria back to Sammy and Rosie's flat, and everyone meets there. Rafi reveals that he has received death threats, and wants to give Sammy his money, provided Sammy and Rosie will buy a house "That is not in a war zone". If they can produce grandchildren, there is money for them too. Rosie has learned through Rani and Vivia that Rafi's past includes an amount of extortion, oppression and human rights abuses. She and Rafi argue this out in a restaurant, whilst the violinists try to play louder than the argument. Rosie wants nothing to do with Rafi's blood money, but Sammy is happy to accept it. Following a party at the flat, Sammy ends up with his lover, who announces she is leaving for America, and demands love from Sammy, Rafi sleeps with Anna, who has been waiting for him for 20 years, and Rosie goes to Victoria's caravan. Victoria live with a group of people like the "Circus Archaos". There are flames, people dressed as ballerinas, metal sculptures, intricate chess sets, and a group to serenade Rosie and Victoria. In the light of morning, Rafi leaves Anna and arrives at the flat to find Rani and Vivia in bed together. After a scene he escapes, and returns to Anna's, pursued by a ghostly image of the one eyed taxi driver. Anna now rejects him, after showing him how she has waited for him all this time, and he goes to Victoria's. However, property developers are throwing the travellers off the site, and symbolically bulldoze all the sculptures. Rafi confronts his demon, who represents the hundreds he had killed and tortured. Everybody turns up, and takes Rafi back to the flat, where whilst everyone is sitting round the table, Rafi plays out his last scene in his room.
I can't see the point of the film. We have Sammy and Rosie, who are integrated into their environment, and seem happy, until Rafi's arrival splits them, and we have Rafi, who cannot live like them, but neither could I, or I suspect, a good many other people! Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
Spoiler Alert! Here is the plot, minus the last scene: I have to leave you some reason to watch it!
Sammy (Ayub Khan Din), and Rosie (Frances Barber), are a couple with a particularly "open" marriage, both being free to see a string of lovers, yet spending mealtimes and weekends together.
The film begins when Sammy's father, Rafi (Shashi Kapoor) is returning to England, to see the son he abandoned as an infant. Sammy is seeing his lover, an American photographer with a "W" tattooed on each buttock, (Yes, he asks her to explain it!), while Rosie visits a client (to do with her job) who turns out to have killed himself. At the same time, a police raid on a house in the street ends up with the death of a woman. This sparks a riot. Rafi arrives by taxi, driven by a one-eyed driver, to find the street cordoned off, and Rosie on the pavement. Rafi and Rosie go into the flat, which is filled with a Bohemian collection of Rosie's friends, including two lesbians Rani and Vivia, who seem to be journalists, who know something about Rafi. Sammy arrives, and the three exchange pleasantries until Rosie leaves to see one of her lovers. Sammy asks her not to go, as by this time there is a full scale riot outside. She leaves, and the camera follows her, as she walks through scenes of looting, burning cars, beatings and mayhem, untouched by it all. Rafi and Sammy venture out, and meet Sammy's lover, who is getting rioters to pose mid stoning for her camera, and again are untouched. The next day, Rafi ventures out, to see the woman he stayed with years ago. He is set upon by rioters, and Victoria (Roland Gift) comes to his rescue, and takes him to Anna's house. He invites Victoria back to Sammy and Rosie's flat, and everyone meets there. Rafi reveals that he has received death threats, and wants to give Sammy his money, provided Sammy and Rosie will buy a house "That is not in a war zone". If they can produce grandchildren, there is money for them too. Rosie has learned through Rani and Vivia that Rafi's past includes an amount of extortion, oppression and human rights abuses. She and Rafi argue this out in a restaurant, whilst the violinists try to play louder than the argument. Rosie wants nothing to do with Rafi's blood money, but Sammy is happy to accept it. Following a party at the flat, Sammy ends up with his lover, who announces she is leaving for America, and demands love from Sammy, Rafi sleeps with Anna, who has been waiting for him for 20 years, and Rosie goes to Victoria's caravan. Victoria live with a group of people like the "Circus Archaos". There are flames, people dressed as ballerinas, metal sculptures, intricate chess sets, and a group to serenade Rosie and Victoria. In the light of morning, Rafi leaves Anna and arrives at the flat to find Rani and Vivia in bed together. After a scene he escapes, and returns to Anna's, pursued by a ghostly image of the one eyed taxi driver. Anna now rejects him, after showing him how she has waited for him all this time, and he goes to Victoria's. However, property developers are throwing the travellers off the site, and symbolically bulldoze all the sculptures. Rafi confronts his demon, who represents the hundreds he had killed and tortured. Everybody turns up, and takes Rafi back to the flat, where whilst everyone is sitting round the table, Rafi plays out his last scene in his room.
I can't see the point of the film. We have Sammy and Rosie, who are integrated into their environment, and seem happy, until Rafi's arrival splits them, and we have Rafi, who cannot live like them, but neither could I, or I suspect, a good many other people! Maybe someone else can enlighten us.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
