Customer Reviews

That'll be the Day

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"That'll be the Day" is a small, well written and acted film made in 1973 that shares similar themes with the better known "Quadrophenia" made 5 years later. Side note: In "That'll be the Day," the Who's Keith Moon has a cameo as a drummer, and the Pete Townshend composition "Long Live Rock," is heard at a dance hall. Both films tell the story of young men in their late teens/early twenties in England who become disillusioned with their lives and most everything around them. In "Quadrophenia," Jimmy Cooper (Phil Daniels) quits his job and runs Ace Face's (Sting) scooter off the seaside cliffs, symbolically severing his ties with the "Mod" lifestyle. The future for Jimmy is uncertain at the end of "Quadrophenia." The ending of "That'll be the Day," however, is much less ambiguous as Jim MacLaine (David Essex) leaves his job and family (including his infant child) for the life of a rock star (further continued in the 1974 sequel "Stardust").

Like "Quadrophenia," "That'll be the Day" is not a musical, though it has plenty of music in it, including the likes of Richie Valens, the Everly Brothers, Dion, etc. The live bands at the dance halls, for the most part, play cover versions of American artists. The real rock stars in the film -- Essex, Ringo Starr, and Billy Fury and Keith Moon in small cameos -- all do an excellent acting job. Essex, in particular, is terrific as Jim and Ringo, as Jim's carny friend Mike, proves that he really can act in a serious role, given the right material (his work here will make you quickly forget about "Caveman"). Rosemary Leach, as Jim's mother, and Rosalind Ayres, as the wife he leaves, are also impressive. Even the small roles are well cast in this film. There's a great scene where young Jim breaks into a seaside arcade on his birthday and proceeds to get drunk. Along comes an English bobby on a bicycle. Rather than arresting him for breaking & entering and disorderly conduct, the compassionate policeman helps Jim home. It's a small, but wonderfully played scene by Ron Hackett as the policeman. Such are the performances throughout this film.

Anchor Bay, as usual, does a great job with the visual presentation of this film, but save for a trailer (shown, for some inexplicable reason, in three different sizes!), there are no extras. This is the type of film where a commentary from David Essex, or the film's director (Claude Whatham) or screenwriter (Ray Connolly) really would have added a lot for fans, in much the way that Director Franc Roddam's commentary added to the viewing experience of "Quadrophenia." If and when "Stardust" is ever released on DVD, let's hope that "the powers that be" will include a commentary track (hint: Director Michael Apted would be great).

Note: Despite it's PG rating, this is not a children's film. In addition to some unsavory characters and mild profanity, there is implied sex as well as a surprisingly graphic sex scene for a PG rated film (the MPAA ratings standards were much laxer in the early 1970s then they are now). Mercifully, there is no drug usage.

"That'll be the Day" is an oustanding examination of a certain period and time: England in the 1950s, when rock and roll began to take hold on the country's youth. Filmed in 1972, the movie uses the gritty kitchen-sink realism that was popular in British films at the time. It doesn't boast much of a story, instead following the life of Jim McLain (David Essex), a restless British teenager who leaves home to work at a funfair. Along the way, he gets hooked on the idea of playing music, with a soundtrack of familiar oldies serving as the soundtrack to his life.

Not a lot happens in the film, but it captures the uneasiness and tension of the period of life when schooltime is over but you haven't settled into adulthood yet. Most intriguing about the film is the shady character of McLain, who is rather shallow and distant, but manages to still be appealing. Much of that is due to the oustanding performance of David Essex in his first starring role. This movie launched his recording career -- the classic "Rock On" was his only U.S. hit, but he's a major performer in his native country -- and he has an easy charisma which makes him likable even when playing an unpleasant fellow. Good work also from Ringo Starr (as Essex's older friend) and Keith Moon as a slightly-crazed drummer (what else?)

.... Also, trivia buffs should notice in chapter eight, Essex can be heard humming the melody of "Rock On," months before he had even recorded the song.

Seems everyone who denigrates this movie at all, does so bc Essex's character is such a scumbag. That's what makes it real. I felt I was almost watching a documentary.

While this movie is generally considered a "Ringo Starr" vehicle, it's really the story of David Essex (the 70's hit "Rock On"), as a British youth who leaves home to work at a Holiday Camp (in the UK, the precursor to amusement parks). There he discovers the joy of bedding young ladies who he will probably never see again. Along the way he enounters Ringo as a 'Teddy Boy' who knows the ropes, until he's badly beaten for shucking the wrong customers. A great role for Ringo, who recalls his own youth working at Butlin's, one of the largest Holiday Camps. The end of this movie is very abrupt and somewhat unbelieveable. A pity, since for the most part it's a realistic, gritty look at a moment that probably happened to thousands of young men in Britain during the 50's. Supposedly this was the first of a two-part series based on Essex's character, but because this one has a Beatle in it, it has enjoyed some cult status, much like John Lennon's turn in "How I Won The War". In the end, it's for die-hard Ringo fans, or anyone interested in the life of a roustabout lad (admittedly a narrow focus).

This is one of my favourite movies of all time! Even though
i am a female i too used to dream of pop stardom. Being a
huge Beatles fan & being around when gorgeous sexy David
Essex came on the scene this film especially appeals to me. This movie as with it's sequel "Stardust" is not about
anyone person in particular but loosely based on elements
of many. Ringo & David are both superb. If you care at all
about The British invasion & or England this movie is a must. This movie is about the humble beginnings of a
furture rock legend. It is also of a certain exciting time
period. These people working low paying jobs at the seaside would later become our heroes.

From Anchor Bay Entertainment comes the long-awaited restored version of a classic rock movie.

The place is Britain. The time: 1958. Said to be based on the early life of John Lennon, this honest and gritty drama is widely considered to be the best depiction of the 1950's British rock scene. Jim McLain (David Essex) leaves home and takes a series of low level jobs at a seaside amusement park. His new friend, played by Ringo Starr, introduces him to a world of tawdry sex and petty crime. Jim's world comes to a shocking and brutal end and he returns home to face his adult future as the local music scene explodes. Will it be responsible adulthood or a new phenomenon called Rock & Roll? The soundtrack features songs by The Everly Brothers, Jerry Lee Lewis, Dion, Del Shannon and more as well as David Essex's # 1 hit "Rock On." A terrific movie if you like classic rock. Straightforward direction by Claude Whatham. (Widescreen, 91 minutes, Rated PG)

I really enjoyed this film, not just because of the great music, but because it portrays the life I have always wanted to lead. Everyone wants to be a pop star, don't they? (If not, you might not enjoy this so much). I was a bit baffled by the shift forward in time by its sequel Stardust, which seems to take place in the 1970s whereas this is set in the 1950s. Writer Ray Connolly has written a lot about the Beatles, so the film's story has some similarities to their life, but it is clearly not meant to be about any one actual person any more than Spinal Tap is meant to be about Status Quo. Nevertheless the central performances from David Essex and Ringo Starr are good, and there is a superb cameo by Billy Fury, reason alone to buy this film if you're a Fury fan!

This film evokes the fifties rock 'n' roll period quite well, thank you. The film tells the story of a disaffected youth (David Essex) who runs away from the monotony of his "normal life" and it's inherent responsibilities. He finds himself working odd jobs at a seaside carnival where he befriends another kindred soul(Ringo Starr). Later, he gets his girlfriend pregnant and finds the responsibility of husband and father so overbearing when he hears the clarion call of rock 'n' roll. David Essex is quite excellent in the lead role, and the film is at pains not to portray his decisions as noble ones. What I don't get is that Essex's character is supposed to be a John Lennon type but I just don't see it. Ringo gives probably his best screen appearance, ever! It's the first time I've seen a film he's appeared in where you think he's in character and not an extension of his Beatles persona. It's also good to see Keith Moon in a nice little cameo. I'm still waiting for the film's sequel, "Stardust" to come out on DVD.

I enjoyed this movie 28 years ago and haven't seen it since. Some films are like that, you watch them once then many years later you realise you simply "must" go back to school. "That'll Be The Day" is such a film. It was that good. Why have I waited so long?

I gave this movie one star because it did show the late Billy Fury in action as well as having a very nice, though very short, drum solo from Keith Moon.

This movie is not just about the Fifties as one reviewer suggested nor only about the Sixties as another indicated. The period covered is the late Fifties to the early Sixties though it is often anachronistic if we are to follow strictly the film's implied chronology.

The central figure in the movie is regarded in too friendly a fashion by some reviewers here. "A working class lad" who is "bedding ladies" flatters both the grammar school dropout and his usually willing 'victims' who are seen as mostly concerned that no one discovers their furtive sexual adventure ("You won't tell anyone will you?") rather than weak and naive dupes who really only want to marry a cute boy and have babies as another reviewer seems to imply. There are three truly sympathetic figures in the film: the boy's mother, his young wife and his best friend who he repays in false coin by deflowering his fiancee.

This movie seems to belong to the growing genre that over-glamorizes rock and roll and its sometimes degraded protagonists and seeks to want to reconstruct the early rock era to some extent in the shoddy image of much of the film industry. I am a fan of rock music myself and I actually grew up in this time period. Some of the movie rings very true but much is overdrawn, blurred and misrepresented. Those who see the central figure in the film as "typical" of his time are right in some instances (such as his love of rock music and recurring daydreams about being rich and famous) but are also wrong in fundamentals. As some have said, and as the movie indicates, neither Essex or Starr play the parts of "typical" teens but typical ROGUE teens who steal and fornicate freely and with little or no evidence of conscience. Everyone knew people something like this but they were not usually regarded sympathetically. Starr is ultimatley portrayed as at least marginally more sexually moral and responsible than Essex. It is he who is beaten up for his blatant thievery while Essex suffers no consequences for his actions. You would think that the actions of the character Essex plays would have led to at least his being the recipient of an occasional good drubbing himself, a paternity suit or two, as well as an occasional anxious trip to the V.D. clinic (although he does seem to, at times, prey on the sexually inexperienced - even to the point of apparently raping a thirteen year old girl ignoring her repeated protests and pleas). While my generation were all more or less flawed this kind of behavior would be roundly condemned by most all of us, yet the film-smiths treat it all glibly and in fact rather like one big romp, and make Essex come out of it all apparently unhurt and the script dumps his victims as readily and as blithely as does the film's central character.

The final and total product is totally uninspiring, unreal, and as pointless and amoral as it main protagonist. The comparison with "Rebel Without a Cause" is rather apposite in one important sense, as would be comparisons generally with the whole genre of films it represents. The villain and any implied "rebellion against society's mores", if that is what is really intended or implied, is shallow, empty and irresponsible.