I can't speak to Al Hine's novel, but filmmaker George Axelrod and co-writer Larry H. Johnson whipped up a script full of wonderful, cheeky cleverness. The dialogue and scene writing skewers everything from education and parent-child relationships to religion, contemporary beach movies, pretty much everything about teenage culture, and more. There are plenty of outright gags along the way, and farcical characters that wouldn't feel out of place in a Monty Python bit; the cast so spiritedly embrace the frivolousness that I have to imagine every day on set was more fun than work, especially as Axelrod maintains that energy as director. Rounded out with lovely hair, makeup, and costume design, swell production design, and some fun music, 'Lord love a duck' is built purely for a good time.
There's just one tiny issue, and like some other titles over the years, this is kind enough to tell us itself what that issue is. One line given to Roddy McDowall fairly early in the length turns out to be the best descriptor of the whole: "Mildly amusing, perhaps, but certainly not funny." The flick is, indeed, mildly amusing - why, I'd go so far as to say it's very highly amusing! One thing it never manages to be, however, is a feature that elicits a laugh. Axelrod's movie is filled with superb wit and utmost mirth; even as we're looking at the 1960s, one discerns a kinship with comedies to come of the 1980s, which I think means 'Lord love a duck' is maybe even ahead of its time in some capacity. Yet for as splendid as the humor is on paper, for as much ingenuity as Axelrod and Johnson bring to the proceedings, and for as much vitality as the actors inject themselves, none of it ever specifically reaches a level that excites any reaction stronger than a smile.
I do actually like the film. I rather had higher expectations, though, and I simply don't think the finished product meets them. It's softly enjoyable, yes, and worth checking out. It's also best reserved for a quiet day as something light that doesn't require or inspire active engagement. I'm genuinely glad for those who enjoy the picture more than I do; I just wish 'Lord love a duck' possessed the necessary spark to set ablaze all the abundant flammable material that's primed and ready for a conflagration.
There's just one tiny issue, and like some other titles over the years, this is kind enough to tell us itself what that issue is. One line given to Roddy McDowall fairly early in the length turns out to be the best descriptor of the whole: "Mildly amusing, perhaps, but certainly not funny." The flick is, indeed, mildly amusing - why, I'd go so far as to say it's very highly amusing! One thing it never manages to be, however, is a feature that elicits a laugh. Axelrod's movie is filled with superb wit and utmost mirth; even as we're looking at the 1960s, one discerns a kinship with comedies to come of the 1980s, which I think means 'Lord love a duck' is maybe even ahead of its time in some capacity. Yet for as splendid as the humor is on paper, for as much ingenuity as Axelrod and Johnson bring to the proceedings, and for as much vitality as the actors inject themselves, none of it ever specifically reaches a level that excites any reaction stronger than a smile.
I do actually like the film. I rather had higher expectations, though, and I simply don't think the finished product meets them. It's softly enjoyable, yes, and worth checking out. It's also best reserved for a quiet day as something light that doesn't require or inspire active engagement. I'm genuinely glad for those who enjoy the picture more than I do; I just wish 'Lord love a duck' possessed the necessary spark to set ablaze all the abundant flammable material that's primed and ready for a conflagration.