Churchill: The Hollywood Years

I'd had this sat on my shelf for a while having bought it as part of a job lot of DVDs. But I was pleasantly surprised.

The film is much more clever than it seems with several in jokes and knowing nods to those who know there 'Comic Strip' and also enjoy taking the mickey out of jingoism, of any nation. To those who don't get that this is a satire more than a parody, note the way that 'Churchill' delivers the Enigma machine to Lord W'ruff within one of the first few scenes.

So it's not rip roaring - so what ? If you want the same old re-heated jokes then the Scary Movie franchise is probably more up your street. This is more the Pete Richardson of 'The Strike' or 'GLC'. It's brave of film producers to throw money at this kind of production, rather than letting it fall to TV and have to make compromises. The money is on the screen. It's a good time film.

For me Reeves and Mortimer play perfectly to form in their hammy cameos. Slater gets the joke and takes a leaf from Charlie Sheen and the Hot Shots movie. The only disappointment is that Miranda Richardson is so under used.

Not a popcorn film for the modern world of MTV and Big Brother, but certainly one worth watching just the once as a balance against the Michael Bay whore fests such Pearl Harbour or Armageddon.

A patchy British send-up of the way Hollywood rewrites history in favour of America.

Although I enjoyed seeing a British film sticking two fingers up to Hollywood, in the end it only, and ironically, serves to demonstrate why Hollywood has won the war in the UK box office. A ramshackle gathering of comical ideas, just about held together around the idea that Churchill wasn't a fat old British aristocrat, but was in fact a young American hero who single-handedly saves England from the Nazis, while falling in love with the future Queen of England.

But too many times the script fell foul of going for the obvious gag, or just swearing for supposed comical effect. And the action sequences were so incompetently done, looking more like something out of an episode of Dad's Army, that they didn't work as a send up of Hollywood action sequences.

Whereas Monty Python had the talents of Terry Gilliam to give their movies style, Peter Richardson is somewhat less than gifted in that department. Some of it looks good, some of it just looks cheap.

Reeves and Mortimer are tedious as usual, and you just get the feeling that most of the Brit comedians who appeared were just here to amuse themselves. This gives a pretty amateurish feel to some scenes.

Still, I laughed and I think its worth seeing, simply because it does show up the absurdity of Hollywood history.

One hint about "Churchill: The Hollywood Years": Ask around . . . no one's seen it. Cooler heads probably managed to mothball this seeming direct-to-airline release. (I sat through it having run out of other on-demand options during a very long flight from Asia to NYC.) The premise in an interesting one, not a good one; Hollywood producers have made a Winston Churchill bio-pic with a young American GI (Christian Slater) in the lead for the benefit of the American audience. It's hard to single out the writing, acting, or direction for criticism because the entire film seems to consist of (justified) outtakes from a movie that may have had some idea what it was doing in the comic space between "Airplane" and "The Player." The film that finally makes it on to the seatback in front of you is jaw droppingly ill-conceived.

When taken in the right spirit, this is a pretty enjoyable film, but it has its share of problems nonetheless. Sold as a parody of the way Hollywood tends to treat actual historical events, it doesn't really live up to its promises as it only occasionally does a decent job of lampooning its subject matter. When it does, it's very funny - my favourite exchange being (paraphrased) "It's up to the Americans to save the day again!", "God, I wish I was an American!". The rest of the time, though, it seems content to simply be a wacky slapstick comedy that gets its laughs from making prominent historical figures look a little ridiculous. Sometimes this works - I adored Neve Campbell's performance as Elizabeth, as well as her hilariously overdone accent... in fact she's probably the best part of the movie - but other times it doesn't, for example with Goering and Goebbels. It also has a habit of making its jokes too obvious at times, as if writer/director Peter Richardson was afraid that audiences wouldn't get it: it's not enough for Churchill's fellow GI, an African-American, to be relegated to the role of the stereotypical black comic relief character, he actually has to point this out to us.

Nonetheless, it's a fun movie, although I suspect that it will go down better with British audiences than American viewers. Provided you're not expecting sophisticated comedy or subtlety of any kind I expect you'll have fun. 7/10

The conceit: Winston Churchill was actually an American action hero and Adolf Hitler was about to marry then-Princess Elizabeth (against her will, of course; she was still alive when this was made and the filmmakers didn't want to wind up in the Tower).

Good: Anthony Sher has some delightful moments as Hitler.

Good: Neve Campbell is a (too) lovely, gung-ho Elizabeth.

Good: This movie has a few good laughs. Such as the pilot who flew Hitler into England. Hey, I laughed out loud at the clutch incident; and, having seen too many World War II movies, I enjoyed what they did with the table where they moved ships and things around (I'm no expert on the period: did such tables actually exist? And why?)

Good: Miranda Richardson made an intriguing, entertaining Eva and as for the portrait of Princess Margaret . . . What satire? And I loved the dog.

Otherwise, this flick amounts to "Carry On, Adolf and Eva." All it lacks are the nasal intonations of Kenneth Wiliams and the whisky-barrel laughs of Sid James.

Except that Williams and James had more genuine talent than most of those assembled here beneath the top tier of actors.

It's difficult to describe the good parts without giving away the few laughs in this one-note affair, which amounts to a sketch (or perhaps no more than a howlingly funny Kentucky Fried Theater trailer/commercial) stretched out like chewing gum to movie length . . . Well, the version I saw was, mercifully, lasted little more than an hour and a quarter and I thought I'd have to gnaw my own leg off to free myself.

Personal digression: though I was a poor boy in a small southern American town I grew up in the 1970s on a diet of P. G Wodehouse and Monty Python and the Goodies and Peter Sellers. Later on life, thanks to the Internet, I enjoyed the Goon Show, Hancock's Half Hour, I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again and The Burkiss Way. I bought a region-free DVD player solely to watch little English movies starring Ian Carmichael, Terry-Thomas, George Cole, Alistair Sim, Eric Barker and the self-same Leslie Phillips who makes a total, irredeemable (donkey) of himself in this . . . (to quote Adolf) . . . Thing.

British readers will know what I'm talking about: as with American comedy, I only care for the cream of British humor and, while I've endured worse, this is fairly close to the dregs. It starts out funny (enough) but quickly peters out. Here and there the humor shines, but most of it just is.

At rock bottom, all failed comedy may be traced to the same root cause: the writing. This movie has a roster of writers who should have known better. Perhaps, as a writer myself (I won't divulge under what name), I have too much imagination but I can see them in a little room as on "The Dick van Dyke Show" (and I bring up van Dyke for a reason, but I can't say why) snickering to themselves like schoolboys who scrawl dirty words on walls. They've forgotten the cardinal rule of writing: "good enough" isn't good enough. Especially where comedy is concerned. They should've rewritten it again and again.

And again.

If all else failed, they might've added more dogs.