Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

robincru21 This TV movie title tells us Graham Kennedy was the anointed king of the formative years of Australian television but the writers here failed by not showing enough of how he earned that reputation. He was supposedly the funniest media entertainer of his era but besides brief moments with giant cat food cans and a cough medicine send up, we see very little proof. Although well- produced and Stephen Curry won an AFI Award for the role, all surviving close friends of the real Kennedy were united in their comments that there was nothing of the Graham Kennedy they knew in this production's portrayal. So what was missing? - possibly the profound brightness, warmth and humour he was most famous for. Curry is good, but on best advice he's playing an expedient character the writers have cooked up - the opportunity for a more memorable biography lost with the failure to expose the real Kennedy - the starting point for a decent biography. More foolish again is the insulting portrayal of Channel 9 anchorman Geoff Corke, the first man on a TV broadcast in Melbourne. The lazy writers try to re-invent Corke as a dime-store Indian. Corke was a driving force in the founding of television production and station management. People like Corke had no predecessors or role models. They created and defined the technique of TV production and presentation. Corke was hugely popular - his wedding in Melbourne was an unprecedented media event there drawing a crowd of 15,000. Graham Kennedy was there too as best man. Only the dynamic of Kennedy and Newton combined managed to challenge Corke's position at the top. The Nine Network's involvement in the production is obvious with the polite rendition of former CEO bully Frank Packer. This forlock-tugging production would have us believe Packer was the King. Of goblins maybe. Archive footage of Kennedy on air shows him laughing until the tears stream down his face - with people like Corke stage managing Kennedy's live to air anarchy and loving it. That's what was uniquely Australian about this era of TV. It's largely missing in this movie.

maitch-1 I was exceptionally disappointed with this film.I have absolutely no qualms with the makers of the movie portraying Graham Kennedy as a troubled person, but the entire movie had a sombre, depressing, almost dour tone.The lighting and the music were intentionally dull, dreary and heavy, and there were very few scenes from Kennedy's hilarious shows and skits. Why the director has chosen this approach is beyond me, when one considers that the overriding atmosphere that Kennedy created way joyous and light. As I say, no issue with portraying Kennedy as they did, but to make the whole movie a downer...I didn't enjoy that.There was virtually no exploration of the personal relationships between Graham Kennedy and Bert Newton or Noeline Brown. There was minimal insight into why Graham was the way he was portrayed in the movie. For a character and era about which so much is already known, this movie did not provide ANY enlightenment or new information. I found there to be very little depth to the movie.A pity really, because the subject of the film was/is so powerful and interesting,it should have led to a truly memorable movie. Stephen Curry's performance was magnificent. Just a great shame that he wasn't give MUCH more to work with.Some minor points, when films have to "trick" certain scenes up with lighting, eg. The scene where Kennedy is being offered Blankety Blanks, you know they're in trouble. Also no mention of "Travelling North" or of "Coast to Coast" in which Graham Kennedy was brilliant.I only gave the movie 5 out of 10 because the subject matter was so excellent.

JOHN_REID There is no doubt that Graham Kennedy was a master of his craft, with Bert Newton not too far behind as another icon of Australian Television. As such it was always going to be difficult for anyone to accurately portray The King. While Steven Curry's performance is a reasonable effort it still resembles something of a caricature and falls well short of reproducing the magic of Kennedy.Graham Kennedy's life certainly had its bitter sweet moments with his complex and private personal relationships but I thought that the writers could have delved a little more deeply into his life and what made him tick. Some things appear to have been left unsaid.There were some interesting insights into the early days of television in Australia where the participants learned their craft on the job but perhaps it was the attempt to duplicate everyone from Noeline Brown to an appalling attempt at replicating Ugly Dave Gray that detracted from the film.The fact is that many Australians grew up with these characters and appreciate and understand them from viewing hundreds of their performances over the years. Any attempt to re create icons like Graham Kennedy is likely to be very tough indeed. It is ironic that some of the more effective moments in the film came with original footage of Kennedy himself rather than those from his impersonator.Perhaps this was too big a task. As so many have said, no one will ever replace The King.

normpoyser A pretty well acted docu-drama but I thought it was rather jerky in places, and could have done with some additional filling. Probably, the show would have done better as a two part 4 hour mini-series, as it did not seem to fit well into such a short time frame (under 2 hours including ad breaks).For those who do not know of the legacy of Graham Kennedy's incredible contribution to Australian television this made for TV movie will not mean a whole lot, simply because there was not enough of the on screen personality that was Graham to really let strangers know why he was so revered in Australia. They will walk away wondering what the fuss was all about.Perhaps the "warts and all" approach (his homosexuality, backstabbing of others, and eventual reclusiveness)was over emphasised, which left less screen time for the TV personality that was GK. I don't honestly know, but I would have liked a bit more than what we got of the public persona, at the expense of the expose, in such a brief movie, or more of both - a longer show. It just all happened to quickly.9/10 for the acting, the quality of the rendition of, particularly 1950's, Melbourne and the TV industry at the time. 5/10 for what I felt was choppy editing, and huge gaps in his career not being even alluded to. And 10/10 for the footage of the real Graham shown at the end. At least for a minute or so, the true abilities of the man shined out on the screen.7/10 Norm