4.5/10
245
9 user 3 critic

Het plezierigste huis in London (1969)

The Best House in London (original title)
In Victorian London, the British Government attempts a solution to the problem of prostitution by establishing the world's most fabulous brothel.

Director:

Philip Saville

Writer:

Denis Norden
Reviews

Photos

Edit

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
David Hemmings ... Benjamin Oakes / Walter Leybourne
Joanna Pettet ... Josephine Pacefoot
George Sanders ... Sir Francis Leybourne
Dany Robin ... Babette
Warren Mitchell ... Count Pandolfo
John Bird John Bird ... Home Secretary
William Rushton William Rushton ... Sylvester Wall
Bill Fraser Bill Fraser ... Inspector MacPherson
Maurice Denham Maurice Denham ... Editor of 'The Times'
Wolfe Morris Wolfe Morris ... Chinese Trade Attache
Martita Hunt ... Headmistress
Arnold Diamond ... Charles Dickens
Hugh Burden ... Lord Tennyson
George Reynolds George Reynolds ... Lord Alfred Douglas
Jan Holden ... Lady Dilke
Edit

Storyline

In Victorian London, the British Government attempts a solution to the problem of prostitution by establishing the world's most fabulous brothel.

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis

Taglines:

This movie is the best fun in town! See more »

Genres:

Comedy

Certificate:

18 | See all certifications »
Edit

Details

Country:

UK

Language:

English

Release Date:

29 January 1970 (Netherlands) See more »

Also Known As:

Het plezierigste huis in London See more »

Filming Locations:

London, England, UK See more »

Company Credits

Production Co:

Bridge Productions See more »
Show more on IMDbPro »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

Sound Mix:

Mono (RCA Sound Recording)

Color:

Color (Eastmancolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1
See full technical specs »
Edit

Did You Know?

Trivia

This was originally planned as a star vehicle for producer Carlo Ponti's wife, Sophia Loren, as " Best House in Milan" with either Marcello Mastroianni or Vittorio Gassman as her co- stars. See more »

Quotes

Sir Francis Leybourne: [the Attache is sobbing] I thought you people were supposed to be inscrutable?
Chinese Trade Attache: Please, Sir Francis, China doesn't want any more opium.
Sir Francis Leybourne: Oh, do be sensible. You chaps have already lost one war with Great Britain about this.
Chinese Trade Attache: But to force us to buy it...
Sir Francis Leybourne: Well, you signed a treaty agreeing to!
Chinese Trade Attache: Your gunboats were right up our Yangtze!
Sir Francis Leybourne: No use getting hysterical, Mr Feng.
Chinese Trade Attache: Then let me appeal to our friendship; those happy weekends I used to spend at your townhouse; your late wife was always so kind to me...
[...]
See more »

Connections

Referenced in Sweet Trash (1970) See more »

Soundtracks

THE BIRDS OF LONDON TOWN
by Ronnie Cass and Peter Myers
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

 
I can't think of a good summary so here goes: I liked it.
22 December 2005 | by sea1313_zomeSee all my reviews

I don't believe this is a spoiler, but I'm not sure what CRUCIAL plot element is so extremely sensitive viewers beware!

First I wanna say that I am not a picky "watcher" and I am fully aware of what others think of this movie (thats it's really bad), I wont say that it's a well thought up movie but I will say this:It's quite a unique movie, that's for sure. One of the reasons why I gave it a six is that in spite of all the bad press i found it to be intriguing, the plot may be a little strange but it was interesting to watch.

Now, I don't know what The "message" was supposed to be, it is about this girl that wants to save "fallen girls" (if I'm allowed to say that), but the movie also contains a lot of unnecessary partial-nudity. So one wonders, was it supposed to support anti-prostitution in a comedic way or was it just about entertaining the crowd by "showing some skin" on television? My opinion about the film is not based on whether it is meaningful or even tasteful. It's based on the fact that it was amusing for me to watch, a light read, one might call it, well if it was a book that is.

Six out of ten stars is pretty high but this is how I rate: 5 is OK (watchable) and ten is incredible. So six to me is good enough to want to watch again. I can't really explain why I found it so appeasing, I guess you're just gonna have to watch it yourselves.

The "bad" things about the movie were that it was a little confusing at times, like if there were scenes missing or something. As I mentioned before it was a little strange. I really can't judge the acting, since I don't usually watch old movies. They spoke a little different in movies back then.

That's really all I have to say about this film.


3 of 5 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you? | Report this
Review this title | See all 9 user reviews »

Contribute to This Page

Stream Trending Movies With Prime Video

Enjoy a night in with these popular movies available to stream now with Prime Video.

Start your free trial



Recently Viewed