IMDb-BEWERTUNG
6,0/10
242
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuShe's new in chambers, and he's a troublemaker. But what *is* the true status of the old lady's wartime marriage, and can the two young legal minds find the answer?She's new in chambers, and he's a troublemaker. But what *is* the true status of the old lady's wartime marriage, and can the two young legal minds find the answer?She's new in chambers, and he's a troublemaker. But what *is* the true status of the old lady's wartime marriage, and can the two young legal minds find the answer?
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Empfohlene Bewertungen
This below par comedy rarely surfaces above average.
Poor casting of the lead players along with diffident direction produces a movie that is best described as a letdown.
Without the talents of the irrepressible James Robertson Justice propping up the whole shebang it would be something to miss - however his presence does stand out and makes it worthwhile to have a look on a rainy afternoon.
Most of the support cast, notably Joan Sims, manage well enough with the tripe being fed to them. Personally, I expect more from an English comedy than has been presented here.
Poor casting of the lead players along with diffident direction produces a movie that is best described as a letdown.
Without the talents of the irrepressible James Robertson Justice propping up the whole shebang it would be something to miss - however his presence does stand out and makes it worthwhile to have a look on a rainy afternoon.
Most of the support cast, notably Joan Sims, manage well enough with the tripe being fed to them. Personally, I expect more from an English comedy than has been presented here.
Michael Craig is miffed because he has to give up his desk for a new junior barrister, who turns out to be the niece of the senior barrister -- Mary Peach. While he's toiling at his customary briefs concerning bad drains (3 guineas for his appearance), her godfather gives her one paying 25 as her first case, so he wheedles the opposing side out of the solicitor.
It's a peculiar one. She's appearing for Brenda de Banzies. She's suing Ron Moody (in his first movie) for restoration of marital rights. Her story is they were married during the war, he took the marriage certificate, and both she and the hall were hit in the Blitz. The records were destroyed and she was evacuated and her memory wiped out for 17 years.
It's a sparkling comedy that reminds me very much of director Ralph Thomas' earlier DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE, particularly when James Robertson Justice shows up as the judge before whom the case is tried. Although it took a few minutes to find its legs, it turned out to be a fine comedy.
It's a peculiar one. She's appearing for Brenda de Banzies. She's suing Ron Moody (in his first movie) for restoration of marital rights. Her story is they were married during the war, he took the marriage certificate, and both she and the hall were hit in the Blitz. The records were destroyed and she was evacuated and her memory wiped out for 17 years.
It's a sparkling comedy that reminds me very much of director Ralph Thomas' earlier DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE, particularly when James Robertson Justice shows up as the judge before whom the case is tried. Although it took a few minutes to find its legs, it turned out to be a fine comedy.
I look on this film as both a film buff and a retired lawyer.I started my training about 4 years after this film was made and i think it may well have reflected society's then view of women lawyers,namely that their judgment was ruled by their emotions and not clear logical thought.I was actually articled to a woman solicitor and i have to say that she was a clear headed professional woman.Mind you women lawyers were extremely rare.In my class at Law School there was only one one woman in a class of 44.So many of the attitudes of the era are shown here.For example the stigma of children born out of marriage.Anyway having said that i would add that this is an amusing film with a fairly distinguished cast which kept me fully entertained.
This film is actually hilarious, brilliantly scripted, superbly acted and wonderfully directed. It's easy to miscontextualise this as as example of sexism endemic within government, judicial and social systems but I thought this did a great job of humiliating those that expose those prejudices.
A bomb is dropped on a wedding and the groom sees an opportunity to escape a lawful marriage simply to satisfy his vile egotistical sexual satisfaction. The ensuing court case see a female barrister pitted against the system.
It's a brilliantly entertaining film filled with wonderful moments of compassion and comedy.
A bomb is dropped on a wedding and the groom sees an opportunity to escape a lawful marriage simply to satisfy his vile egotistical sexual satisfaction. The ensuing court case see a female barrister pitted against the system.
It's a brilliantly entertaining film filled with wonderful moments of compassion and comedy.
Despite its deliberately salacious title and advertising, "A Pair of Briefs" turns out to be a rather tame, verbose, clumsy, heavy-handed and overly repetitious farce. It's one of those stage pieces in which the characters take forever to make a jocular point that even the most cretinous audience fully grasped in the first few seconds. And in actual fact, aside from the credit titles themselves and a totally irrelevant (if "brief") scene in a strip club, there is little in the movie that would be judged unsuitable for an audience of novices or monks.
With the exception of Michael Craig, a rather wet and ponderously uninspiring hero, the players do what can to improve their tired and rather fulsome material. Liz Fraser comes off best. It's not that her lines are any sharper, it's just that she manages the rather difficult feat (considering the poverty of her material) of not outstaying her welcome. Mary Peach is okay as the concerned heroine, while James Robertson Justice (as an irascible judge) contributes his customary characterization. Ron Moody, who is "introduced" in this movie, strains mightily to make something of the caricature the script hands him. Likewise, Brenda De Banzie overdoes both sides of her dual portrait. The only other player worth mentioning is Charles Heslop, who does contribute a few amusing moments as a reminiscing registrar.
With the exception of Michael Craig, a rather wet and ponderously uninspiring hero, the players do what can to improve their tired and rather fulsome material. Liz Fraser comes off best. It's not that her lines are any sharper, it's just that she manages the rather difficult feat (considering the poverty of her material) of not outstaying her welcome. Mary Peach is okay as the concerned heroine, while James Robertson Justice (as an irascible judge) contributes his customary characterization. Ron Moody, who is "introduced" in this movie, strains mightily to make something of the caricature the script hands him. Likewise, Brenda De Banzie overdoes both sides of her dual portrait. The only other player worth mentioning is Charles Heslop, who does contribute a few amusing moments as a reminiscing registrar.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesTheatrical movie debut of Judy Carne (Exotic Dancer - Maid).
- Zitate
Sidney Pudney: See you in the dock sometime, as the monkey said to the tramp steamer.
- VerbindungenReferenced in Michael Craig (2022)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- A Pair of Briefs
- Drehorte
- Produktionsfirma
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit1 Stunde 30 Minuten
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen
Oberste Lücke
By what name was Das letzte Wort hat sie (1962) officially released in Canada in English?
Antwort