Honest (2000) Poster

(2000)

User Reviews

Review this title
23 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
I need to be Honest . . .
insomniac_rod18 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When I first heard that the Appleton sisters were going to be in a movie, I immediately thought about the atrocious "Spice World". I thought that the plot for the movie would be just an excuse to exploit the All Saints fame. How wrong I was.

To the heck with all the black comedy concept and "action" sequences; to be Honest, I watched it for the T&A factor. I don't feel any shame to admit it.

This movie is all about the sexy Appleton sisters getting naked and performing steamy sex scenes. You can forget about the rest of the movie.

Seriously, if you watch this one for it's plot and character development you will be disappointed big time. But if you watch it for the sexy sisters you will have a great time for sure!.

It's not a very popular movie for obvious reasons; bad acting, lame script, and editing. But if you can, watch it when it airs on cable.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Dave Stewart Makes an Honest Living
Chris_Docker27 May 2000
Foreign critics have received this movie much better than British ones. Possibly because, although Dave Stewart has done a reasonable recreation of sixties swinging Hippiedom in London, it really isn't that interesting to home-grown audiences any more. The addition of three-quarters of a well-known girl band (All Saints) gives it even less charm (although one of the ladies concerned turns in quite a reasonable performance, as well as letting the camera linger longingly on her bosom. Nice to see ex-pop star Dave Stewart make a go of directing now his music career isn't what it used to be - he's done a reasonable job but he will hardly be hailed as a great director for this effort.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wondering why The All Saints split up? Watch this to find out..
anxietyresister9 August 2003
Now I'd be the first to admit that I haven't seen this pop star vanity project for a while, but as they say: Bad memories cut deep and I find it virtually impossible to come up with answers to these questions a) Who would want to pay money for a production with a script as patently rubbish as this and b) If this is the first film where the starting point was.. Nicole Appleton's breasts. When is someone going to pluck up the courage to tell these singing prima-donnas that to star in a movie you need ACTING LESSONS. Britney and Mariah, I hope you're listening too(And who can forget From Justin to Kelly....Urgh). These poor deluded creatures should keep their Hollywood dreams at bay and concentrate on their singing careers (Though admittedly, some of them aren't even too hot at that). Anyway back to the film: Well it's rubbish if you haven't got the message by now, squeezing every British crime movie cliche out into the open and still making a pigs ear of it. Oh Lock Stock, what have you brought upon us?! Plus the movie is full of time-line mistakes considering it's meant to be set in the 60's (check out the goofs section) and it also wastes a fantastic British supporting cast. It all adds up to a huge waste of celluloid, an experience that the All-Saints ( Now embarking on their career as solo artists) would no doubt rather forget and (hopefully) a message that rings loud and clear to all singers thinking of venturing outside their area of expertise.. Don't do it guys!!
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie sucks! ..And it still sucks..! Nothing' but pure pappy-show!
smiley-3229 October 2005
I went to see this film with my girlfriend.. Although she's a fan of ALL SAINTS.. I thought I'd treat her to see this film.. I must admit, after ten minutes into the film.. I started to get bored and wanted to fall asleep.

OK, so Dave Stewart maybe in the director's chair.. but his biggest mistake was directing a film that had no sense.. Pure pappy-show!

Well anyway, by the end of the film.. I looked at my girlfriend.. and from the look of her face.. She was surely cheesed off with the film..

It was a total thumbs down for the both of us.. We felt that the ALL SAINTS singers should stick to singing..

But these days now, we don't usually hear about the Appleton Sisters.. Melanie Blatt, well? I guess she's still gtting back into singing.. And what about Shaznay Lewis..? I have no idea..

Sorry Dave.. But if you want to go back into directing..? Get someone to give a decent script! Totally diabolical 1 out of 10!
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Singers do not necessarily make good actors
augustian15 September 2010
Honest was an attempt by the cast of girl-band All-Saints to try their hand at acting. The film should have been a comedy-drama but unfortunately the end result just proved that not all singers are gifted with acting talent (Shaznay Lewis, the fourth member of the group probably saw what was coming and declined a role).The fact that the three girls have not done anything significant in the acting world since Honest speaks volumes. Director Dave Stewart made his name directing music videos and so was perhaps the wrong person for this film.

Nicole and Natalie Appleton with Melanie Blatt play three sisters who disguise themselves as men in order to commit burglaries and robberies in 1960s London. The have figured that the only way out of their working class rut is to rob from the rich and well-to-do. In the course of their crimes they cross a real hard villain who does not appreciate the sisters moving into his patch. Peter Facinelli plays Nicole's love interest as they evade the police and the hit men sent after them.

It is very difficult to believe that the disguises that the girls adopt would in any way convince onlookers that these were really men. They still look like girls in disguise and even their voices betray their gender. Everyone speaks with an obviously fake Cockney accent and some of the facial grimaces they pull in an attempt to look hard are plainly stupid. There are plenty of props placed around the sets to give an authentic 60s feel, from lava lamps to gramophones to dreadful wallpaper, and even more dreadful clothes.

This review was of the UK DVD release of the film and it is unfortunate that there are no extras such as director's commentary or behind the scenes documentary. For the record, the music festival scene was shot at Kirtlington Park, Kirtlington, Oxfordshire, England. This was a nice diversion from London but it still only gets the film 2 stars.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unenjoyably bad
CaptainBirdcat24 October 2006
This film is the worst i've ever seen. I'm presuming anyone who grades this higher than a 2 is just a massive All Saints fan. I'm one of those weird people who usually likes bad films but this was a real chore to sit through. It's not just bad in one area either. The acting is awful. I do actually like all Saints music but i think the fact that they never tried their hands at films again indicates that they probably realised how bad they were. The story line is S***e as well. Altogether i think had another director (not The Eurythmics Dave Stewart) had tried to get this made with another set of actresses than it never would have been given the green light. On 2nd thoughts go see this film because unless you've seen it you can't comprehend how bad it is. Just make sure you've got a decent Brit flick to watch straight after, just so it doesn't put you off British films for life.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This must have looked great on paper...
Ian Mc24 May 2000
This must have looked great on paper... Imagine three beautiful sisters, in swinging-sixties London, who steal for a living. Get three pop stars (Nicole and Natalie Appleton, Melanie Blatt of the 'All Saints) as the cast and package with pop star turned director, Dave Stewart (of Eurythmics fame).

It's the perfect pitch. OK - maybe not, but there will be a buzz and people will want to see it. But should they? In my opinion, probably not.

From the outset, the film couldn't decide whether it wanted to be sixties a pastiche comedy, or a thriller edged movie.

The plot was pedestrian and you were never really drawn to care about the characters. The script was peppered with sixties stereotypes, posh kids, tripping hippies and some decidedly one-dimensional mobsters. The cast seemed to struggle under the weight of the plot, some of the scenes were truly painful to watch - especially the comedy drug-dealer villain and the extended 'trip' sequence. Some of the emotional pay-offs were lame to say the least. Co-writers Clement and La Frenais (with Stewart) are capable of much, much more than this.

All that said, there are a couple of good comedy moments, including a chase into Mornington Crescent Tube Station in a camper van. Sadly, these moments are few and far between.

Nicole Appleton, as the oldest sister Gerry, seemed reasonably at home in her role. Sadly though, she was let down by a mock-cockney accent which seemed to have escaped from the Dick Van Dyke school of dialect coaching. Others were guilty of this too. Peter Facinelli, the American love interest was missable. Corin Redgrave brought a little dignity to the proceedings with his mob boss.

Points must also go to one of the most obvious continuity errors I have ever seen... a full back tattoo that goes missing!

With an 18 Certificate in the UK for the drug-taking, language and nudity the film was doubtless pitched at an adult audience. I feel that, unless all want to see is some pop star nudity, you will walk away disappointed. "Honest" is destined for the same bargain bin that you may pick 1997's 'Spiceworld' out of, and that's a shame as this had the potential to be far, far better. One to miss.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pointless
toaster-827 May 2000
This film is one of the worst I've seen for a long, long time. There's so much wrong with it I don't even know where to start. Okay, the acting: the 3 all saints girls, can't act, nor can they fake cockney accents. the direction: Pretensious, trying to be arty, failing.

the script: one word, terrible! The plot: there was a plot???? The point: unless the all saints are hoping never to be taken seriously again, I really can't see any point to this film.

I didn't like it very much.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Really not all that bad
joncoles30 May 2000
This was I film I saw by accident, the film I meant to watch being sold out. As a result I had no preconceptions about it, no prejudice about the leading actresses, which in this case was probably a good thing. The acting of the three pop stars playing the three criminal sisters, Robin Hoods except that they themselves are the poor they give to, is not all that bad, and probably is scrutinized harder than usual because you know they are not really trained actors. The character of Gerry in particular is well played, despite the occasional false note in the cockney accent. They get themselves into trouble with drug dealers and local gangland bosses and drag in an innocent American who falls for Gerry after she assaults him with a life size roughly female and half nude work of art. There are comic moments to keep the film going when the action is thin on the ground, note the rich aristocratic heir who fills his time putting out a 60s subversive magazine. The portrayal of 1960s London and the contrast between those caught in their hippie revolution and those in the East End whose lives seem little changed since the 1940s feels reasonably authentic and is one of the pleasures of the film. One scene of a drug effected festival can give an edge of vertigo. The film touches on a lot of issues through its characters, rich versus poor, traditional versus modern, female equality, but does not explore any of them in any depth. While this may annoy some, I believe many would argue that this is not the point of the film. Overall, do not expect a classic or a memorable impression on your life, but if you are open minded and let yourself simply be entertained then you could well have an enjoyable time watching this.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Loved it
steven-mendelson19 October 2009
Disclaimer -- just watched it really late night -- actually ended at 420am, but I thought it was fun.

Perhaps I am too old to understand all the hostility to the movie.... I was alive and tripping in the second half of the 60s. It really tickled me, and the trips festival brought back memories of my own trips festival experiences...memories I hadn't thought about for decades. The trips festival was somewhat realistic and the acid experiences at times reflected my own experiences.

The artist Loretta and her show were great fun....

The crime caper certainly was superficial but fun.

All in all a great send up of the 60s and fun.... yes, nice tits too.

steve
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"They want to provoke us, you see... shock us out of our bourgeoisie complacency"
The_Movie_Cat26 May 2000
Honest has had something of a rough press in England; it's content and cast earning it a pre-release reputation as "The All Saints Movie". (Even though one of the group - Shaznay Lewis - doesn't appear) More precisely, it has another reputation - that of "The All Saints Exposing Their Boobs Movie". If that's the reason you would want to see this film (and it was a small part of the reason I went. Well, okay, a fairly large part. A large part. Okay, alright, it was the only reason I went to see it. Happy now?) then you'll be disappointed. The scenes in question, heavily cut at the girls' bequest, last for no longer than three minutes, or less than 3% of the film's runtime.

What is slotted into the place of a perceived celebrity nudefest is a look at sixties counterculture. We even get a Hendrix impersonation, an LSD trip and Bootsie Collins in the cast. Music is of the era, with some covers of Motown originals by the three girls evident in the background. However, it's all so self-consciously done (Nicole, as Gerry, can't even sit down without picking up an authentic copy of a 1960s Radio Times) that it comes across more as a pastiche or someone's anecdote of what the era was like, rather than the supposedly-genuine recreation of Dave Stewart's youth. Similarly, the satirical bent the movie favours in this regard is a little too broad to be fully effective; though there is a nice little in-joke with "Clement La Frenais" appearing on a roadsign, and a scene where an acid-soaked hippie debates the nature of existence to a cow.

The other half of the film is a look at East End villainy; the three girls playing a small-time armed robbery unit who clash with a bigger outfit. Nicole is the definite lead with by far the largest role. She does reasonably well, carrying a surprisingly effective London accent. Mel Blatt, the one who doesn't have to strip, has the smallest role, possibly only 10 or 15 minutes in all. This is a shame as she gives a nice performance, and her lack of achievement with the opposite sex does cause some of the film's main amusement. By far the weakest of the group is Natalie Appleton as Mandy, a tough psychotic. Except she's neither tough nor particularly psychotic and her ordering a crowded room at gunpoint is especially unconvincing. As is her accent, come to that. Thankfully, she too gets a minor role, possibly twenty minutes or so.

There's also a love interest with Peter Facinelli as Daniel Wheaton, the romance perhaps not always convincing due to strained relations off screen. In a scene which gives the role-reversal of A Clockwork Orange's "man kills woman with phallic object"; Nicole tries to squish Daniel with a statue of a female nude. He overcomes her, and, eschewing a stunt double, Nicole found herself covered in bruises filming the rest of the fight sequence. What followed has been reported differently, some magazines alleging that during their sex scene together Nicole yelled "cut!". Her account in the reliable Empire magazine states that the fight had caused them to have a massive argument. So much so that the atmosphere was hostile for their lovemaking scene and that, while Nicole didn't stop the filming, she was extremely pleased when a low-flying aircraft disturbed the shoot and curtailed it prematurely.

In the same publication the singer was attributed with the following unpromising quote: "Everyone has dodgy first films. But everyone has to start somewhere, and not every actor's first film was great". When your leading actress starts an interview with a sentence like that, you pretty much know what you're getting for your money. But ultimately, three things will go through your mind as you leave the cinema: 1. The film is no classic, but certainly not as bad as you've been led to believe; 2. The 60s were not as much fun as people make out; and 3. Bob Dylan was a truly awful singer.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One should really mention the plot...
Covey-320 September 2000
To give you an idea of how utterly dull and lifeless this movie is, I will tell you now that the last word of this review is going to be the film title used in a humorous and non too obvious fashion. OK?

So, to the film. Some films do exist that make Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars look like a masterpiece....... I have yet to see one yet and this doesn't even come close. Even though it is awful. And by awful I mean dull, lifeless, cricket, dire, boring. Dave Stewart, as the guitarist and co songwriter has had to put up with Annie Lennox for a good 2 decades so lets not be too hard on him, the film does have its moments. They cost 90p each on a £3.60 ticket. (Or about $1.25 in America on a $5 ticket.) Yes, two of the girls appear topless in the film and while this is no bad thing, I can't see them being given another movie anytime soon.

Mel Blatt is good in the film. She appears natural to this business we call SHOW. Nicole also has her moments (90p remember). Natalie however, the eldest of the two sisters isn't that great in the film. In fact, I'm being kind. A blind monkey with a badger strapped round it's head could have pulled a better performance. Reminiscent of an early Turtletaub or a late Howard.

Unfortunately, the casting is where the movie fails. While 66% of the All Saints are good in this film, 33% aren't. A better idea would have been to cast 3 of the S Club 7 girls in it (Tina obviously getting the boot). Because S Club 7 exist in farce, their cheeky smiles and mischievous ways would have blended perfectly with the Honest backdrop of Cockney England.

Anyway, in conclusion, I can't really recommend this film enough. 90p a nip is a bargain in today's climate. I just feel that S Club 7 would have made a far superior film to the one that we were given. Honest.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An o.k movie
Ken Adiv19 December 2003
Caught the movie on the local movie channel. It was interesting enough to keep me watching. The All Saints play three sisters. Some funny moments, a litle action, and the occasional love scene :-)

7 / 10 - An o.k movie, fun to watch.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A rather good movie; well worth watching.
TANESY31 October 2002
I would rather rip my own guts out with blunt knife than buy any All Saints album. So it's quite clear I didn't watch this movie because I'm an All Saints fan. Nor do I find any of them particularly attractive, so that's no selling point there either - mind you the two Appleton sisters do both get their top off if that's why you're interested in this movie. I wasn't expecting much from this film, but I must admit I was happily surprised. This is a rather good movie. No it's no masterpiece, but it has an entertaining story, is well paced and even laced with some really good acting performances. Definitely worth watching.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Dis honest?
kosmasp6 August 2022
As in "this is supposed to be honest?" Or as in no pun intended too of course. Also that doesn't count as mansplaining right? If I say what I meant with a wordplay I did, that maybe only my twisted mind can decipher.... anyway, here we go.

Decent acting, decent story - getting or bringing us back in time. And reliving certain sexist things - but also some female empowerment .. of sorts. Even if of questionable value (as in criminal and all that). Not the best movie of that era - but certainly interesting in more ways than one ... a triple threat of sorts too (no pun intended)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Is it really worth a comment
wristwatchraver-120 March 2007
I admit I have seen this film and I hang my head in shame! I first heard about this film while in college and the damning from critics it was getting. As the eternal optimist I thought it couldn't be as bad as all that so I rented it from amazon. It wasn't as bad as all that...it was worse! The last pop star to make any decent movies was Elvis Presley, Madonna doesn't count as what she does isn't acting; I dunno what it is but it is definitely not acting. The All Saints girls are brilliant musicians but rubbish actors. It's billed as a comedy but it isn't even funny! Had it had a better script (I could do better) and possibly a better story All Saints might made it big in the movie industry as well as the music one. This movie is worse than Showgirls (thats something coming from me!) Don't rent/buy it!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
i liked it !
robidon200013 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
i liked this movie, for costumes, make-up, and all typical swinging London details. Houses and streets and shops of late 60's London, are very colored and similar to reality. I think that the script is original, unconventional, and three girls thieves who disguise themselves to rob in various places are fantastic. Three girls are not professional actresses but are so pretty and i adored all their disguises. There are some other interesting characters as the bad boss and the photographer. They (girls) are not saints, but their actions are not only simply robberies, are a protest, too, against a society in which not all has same rights. Very nice the character of jerry's friend, who might choice between easy life in U.S.A. or a love story with that strange but so cute girl.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
honestly terrible
Alexander_seth20002 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film is one of the worst I've ever seen.I am a fan of all saints, but the three girls from the band were appalling in this movie. The acting was terrible, the plot was almost non existent.The other characters were under developed, the only decent character of any entertainment value was the father(James Cosmo).The Mornington crescent scene was of some minor comedy, and the near end scene with the father getting the crook to cut the melon was a laugh. The American actor Peter Facinelli wasn't bad considering how bad the rest of the cast is(exception James Cosmo of course).I am not surprised shaznay gave this film a miss.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The movie sucks but I'm a loyal fan so I give them a 10
dagmar2die42 May 2001
The movie sucks but I'm a loyal fan so I give them a 10 = the one line summary tells it all. Well at least it didn't hit the big screen cause than this movie would really have a 2 or something so I'm happy with the 74 users that only voted for this movie.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
S***e
novatone13 September 2023
I remember getting my mum to record this onto VHS for me way back when (I was about 20 and like many others thought the Appletons and Blatt were fit) so looked forwards to seeing a feature-length excuse to see the girls trying their hand at acting.

Obvs there's nudity in it. That's literally the first thing anyone knew about this film. What becomes apparent very quickly however is that this film absolutely sucks.

I think I ffwded through the VHS to find the nudity, but don't ever remember actually seeing it because in reality those bits are just two blink-and-you'll-miss-it glimpses of boob. I didn't actually watch the film.

Here in 2023 I discovered the film is available to stream via a site in the states (an English film about London you can't actually watch in the U. K. unless you're silly enough to waste money buying or renting it, lol)

Watching it I wished I'd still got a ffwd button. I persevered though, but the whole thing is absolute s***e. Really unenjoyably low-rate. St Trinians is probably better than this.

Still haven't finished it but I will force myself to. It will be good to know I never have to watch this again. Absolutely awful.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What have I just sat through?
shank-730 May 2000
This film started poorly and did very little to pull itself up and away from the lowest common denominator; 'roll up and see the All Saints get their boobs out!' Any film needs more than celebrity nudity to make it watchable - sadly Honest didn't have much else to recommend it. The script is average, the plot has an exciting base but doesn't build on this, and the Appleton accents are 'novel' at best. For me Melanie comes away her head held high. She is sweet and engaging as Jo, but is that because she is a good actress or that Melanie Blatt herself is sweet and engaging? The film would always be slated in England regardless of how good it was. It isn't terrible, but it definitely isn't anything to write home about.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
pop not art
sparkle-1427 May 2001
Despite the pathetic protestations of the Director and production company, this film was nothing more than a 'Spice World II'. Nothing wrong with that as Spice World had an ardent audience of pre-teens/ teens and made money. But no, Honest Productions seemed to think that 'Honest' was serious art for adults. Very misguided, but apparently they persuaded their distributors of same. Had the Director curbed his ego (and obvious desperation to be seen as a serious director), cut the violence and sex so that the REAL audience for this film: teen and pre-teen fans of the All Saints had access, this film might actually have found its true audience and made some money. Yet it seems only adults went to see movie, in hopes of getting a good look at the Appleton sisters' breasts. In casting three non-actors who obviously couldn't muster up the ironic edge to give a silly story any real comic value; attaching an aging pop star who clearly can't direct; and trying to sell this as 'serious art', the team behind this pic cut their own throats. Why didn't the distributors, who ought to know better, insist that this be edited to get a 15 certificate? That's even more idiotic than the film itself.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed