if you have read the original novel and a i do and you will probably hate this thing . the film version of _absolute beginners_ be a nightmarish conglomerate of 1980s anachronism attempt to create a period piece set in the late 1950s and fail to re create or even pay homage to that period the u monstrosity of _dirty dancing_ do similar to 1963 and except that film prove financially successful despite have equally amateurish screen write . in addition to suffer from look too 1980s and the character have be change and re arrange and and downplay to the point that the only characteristic they have in common with those of the novel be the slight superficial look and and of course and their name represent suze be transform from the narrator flighty ex girlfriend and promiscuous negrophile who willingly plan to marry a closeted old queen for money ( at her own admittance in the first few page ) into a hapless and naive eve archetype seduce by fame and glamour and exploit and somehow scammed into a sham marriage by her bos and who surprisingly wasn not give a van dyke and pointy hairstyle . she and the narrator and re name colin ( after the book author and colin macinnes ) for the film and be also in a relationship . big jill character and a lesbian seemingly butch yet fop like in her mid 20 who act as pimp to a cadre of young and bubble head lesbian and and one of the narrator close friend and dispense frank wisdom to the narrator and be reduce to a sort of name extra with only a few throw away line and and tonne of comical outfit . the fabulous hoplite and a gay young man and another close friend of the narrator in the novel and be also reduce to the point of be pointless in the film and camp up and all but ignore . the narrator father in the novel be a sort of sad minor character but in the film and he play to come off a optimistic and oddly spirit despite the squalid neighbourhood and and the disarray of his marriage to the narrator mum seem and for all practical purpose and ignore . in it favour and the music ( for what it be ) be well compose and and you have to give the production and write crew credit for actually take a line from the book ( . some day and they will write musical about the 1950s . ) a their inspiration to write a musical and but in the world of bad camp up musical and this be among the most poorly execute in the bunch . unlike _shock treatment_ or _starstruck_ crucial plot element be treat a afterthought . unlike _the apple_ and there be a choppy and uneven flow between musical number and spoken dialogue . you really can not blame it too 1980s feel on the fact that it be create in the 1980s . the film version of _annie_ release in 1981 and pay a wonderfully well execute tribute to the look and feel of new york city in the 1930s and and _napolean dynamite_ manages to capture a gritty sort of look and feel of the 1980s despite be make on a low budget in 2003 ( though it not explicitly set in the 1980s and those who live through the decade can not deny that the film feel very 1980s ) . obviously and it be _possible_ to make something good out of this and especially consider the iconic status that the source novel have in the uk and but it fail most apparently in the look and feel and and also in it treatment of the source material and which be downright disrespectful . perhaps if you haven not read and have no intention of read the novel and you could enjoy this campy 1980s anachronism give a shameful parody of late 1950s soho london modernist jazz set . i can definitely see what the write team be attempt and but they definitely could have do well . with boy george a a household name and mixed race musician and band on the chart in 1986 uk and they definitely do _not_ need to bowdlerise the character in the way that they end up do . in fact and i would go so far a say that the writer wind up do what both the book and film criticise harshly it end up have a bunch of adult crank out crap and treat it target teen age audience like two bit idiot to make a quick buck off of .