Agrega una trama en tu idiomaThere is no plot as such. This is a slapstick comedy. It shows a lots of gags.There is no plot as such. This is a slapstick comedy. It shows a lots of gags.There is no plot as such. This is a slapstick comedy. It shows a lots of gags.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Nominado a 1 premio Óscar
- 1 premio ganado y 1 nominación en total
Richard Lester
- Painter
- (sin créditos)
Peter Sellers
- Photographer
- (sin créditos)
Dick Bentley
- Protagonist
- (sin créditos)
Mario Fabrizi
- Photographer
- (sin créditos)
Bruce Lacey
- Man With Record
- (sin créditos)
David Lodge
- Hammer Thrower
- (sin créditos)
Leo McKern
- Man With Boxing Glove
- (sin créditos)
Spike Milligan
- Man with Tent
- (sin créditos)
Norman Rossington
- Bearded Man
- (sin créditos)
Graham Stark
- Man with Kite
- (sin créditos)
Johnny Vyvyan
- Protagonist
- (sin créditos)
Opinión destacada
My main trouble with this film was that most of the gags sound a lot funnier in principle (and, presumably, in the minds of their creators) than they seem to come out in practice: it's only eleven minutes long, but I found my attention-span seriously flagging well before the end.
It is essentially a silent film, featuring a very basic soundtrack and some sound effects; in fact in its style it reminds me of the very early silent comedies (circa 1900) which basically consisted of random slapstick scenes cut together. I saw this in company with Cecil Hepworth's "Saturday Shopping" (1903), and in fact in some ways it's not dissimilar. On the whole it's what you might expect from a film that consisted of fooling about for a couple of Sundays in a field that cost the grand sum of five pounds to hire...
It's a pity, because a lot of the gags, if described, sound very ingenious (man uses woman as camera to photograph husband; clay-pigeon-shooter shoots down discus and engages in duel with the enraged discus-hurler). But somehow the execution seems so random and amateurish that I really didn't find it very funny: and in the absence of laughter, nonsense becomes extremely tedious.
It is essentially a silent film, featuring a very basic soundtrack and some sound effects; in fact in its style it reminds me of the very early silent comedies (circa 1900) which basically consisted of random slapstick scenes cut together. I saw this in company with Cecil Hepworth's "Saturday Shopping" (1903), and in fact in some ways it's not dissimilar. On the whole it's what you might expect from a film that consisted of fooling about for a couple of Sundays in a field that cost the grand sum of five pounds to hire...
It's a pity, because a lot of the gags, if described, sound very ingenious (man uses woman as camera to photograph husband; clay-pigeon-shooter shoots down discus and engages in duel with the enraged discus-hurler). But somehow the execution seems so random and amateurish that I really didn't find it very funny: and in the absence of laughter, nonsense becomes extremely tedious.
- Igenlode Wordsmith
- 13 sep 2011
- Enlace permanente
Argumento
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAccording to Richard Lester, it was a series of mistakes (which he cannot say) that got this film nominated for an Academy Award.
- ConexionesEdited into The Beatles Anthology: February '64 to July '64 (1995)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Liebenswerte Leckerbissen
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- GBP 70 (estimado)
- Tiempo de ejecución10 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.37 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What was the official certification given to The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film (1959) in Japan?
Responda