Whoops Apocalypse

I have also seen the tv-series, but preferred the movie, by far. It has aged well, like really good comedies typically do (see e.g. Life of Brian).

If you like British humour, you will love this.

This is a corny, horribly-paced comedy where you see every joke coming a mile away, and then they hit you over the head with the punchline as hard as they can. It starts off with some clown doing an "old people move slowly" joke that feels straight out of the early 1800s. Then the movie repeats the same joke. And it stays at that level of cornball laziness the whole time.

This movie LOVES dragging out & repeating its jokes to make sure they're as dead & unfunny as possible. Here's an island full of Russians wearing the same disguise, so let's hit you over the head with that 1 visual gag over and over and over for multiple scenes. Or here's a special ops squad breaking into a wax museum where they've heard the Princess is being held prisoner. Obviously the lamest, corniest joke you could do is "the soldiers think the wax dummies are real people," and the movie does that joke about 15 times.

OR they won't even bother with any jokes at all: Here's Michael Richards in blackface, does he say or do anything remotely funny? Nope, this is one of those movies that thinks "comedy means the audience is supposed to laugh, not that the actors are supposed to be funny."

Richards is a good example of the godawful directing in this movie, as he's horribly overdirected & saddled with a "funny" nasal voice most of the time (think Adam Sandler at his worst). It's obvious the screenwriter was in love with his own words, creating a tedious, talky script where the actors have barely any breathing room to add their own personality. The classy Peter Cook and the always-energetic Rik Mayall try their hardest to add some spark to their roles, but they're totally wasted as they shuffle through a series of incredibly lame jokes that might've "looked good on paper" but are a chore to actually sit through.

Meanwhile Loretta Swit plays the 1 major female character; as the US president, she's basically a boring sitcom mom who just wags her finger scoldingly at the male characters' clowning around. That's right, we get the cliche of every hack writer who has no idea how to make a woman funny or even interesting, so he just makes her the boring "smart" character who sits there. Of course, most of the movie follows this barely-even-a-character. Other characters in the movie actually DO things, but the closest thing we have to a protagonist is this boring plank of wood. How stupid do you have to be to fail that badly at basic screenwriting?

So if the comedians in the cast brought you to this movie, don't get your hopes up for an "underrated gem" or a "forgotten classic." Maybe to people who grew up in the 1950s and were sheltered from satire their entire lives, this movie was "outrageous," but even stuff made at least a decade earlier was harder-hitting. It's honestly depressing to see the talent completely wasted on this hacky, embarrassingly lame script. The only value in this movie is a guideline to young screenwriters: "do the opposite of this."

I hadn't seen this for years and just brought it on DVD. I've got up off the floor now! This film has it all. Insane politicians, evil terrorists (wanted for releasing the recipe for airline lunches, a crime that rates alongside killing), demented journalists, the SAS blasting the London wax museum (Madame Tussards) to pieces and a British princess enduring unenviable treatment at the hands of the baddie. I think anyone over 30 or those who survived the Thatcher/Regan era should see this film, it is just toooooo funny for words. Most of the jokes are still funny now and I will never ever make a cup of tea using a Liptons tea-bag ever again. Ian Richardsons camp admiral and Rik Mayalls SAS captain are guaranteed to bring tears to your eyes whilst Peter Cook as the PM is so funny you'll laugh till you burst your ribs. A classic and I'm off to watch it again right now!

If you're looking for the insanity and brilliance of the TV version here, look elsewhere. This is a pale imitation of the series, and a very dated movie. The movie version of Whoops is not like the TV series at all. In fact, it's really a remake in name only. The plot is completely different, centering around a skirmish in a small island run by the UK, and as a result, a royal princess is kidnapped and held for ransom until the island is returned to its people. This leads to a nuclear standoff with the Russians/Soviets. This was shot in the 1980's, so the plot mirrors the Falkland Islands situation at the time. While the original miniseries was also about the Cold War, it's much funnier and more timeless than this film. The film feels very compressed, rushing over things and trying to cram everything into a 90 minute running time. There are logic holes as well, especially dealing with the terrorist Lacrobat, played by Michael Richards. Lacrobat seems to be a magic man that has ready made disguises for every occasion and can outwit entire armies and nations in just a few minutes. Another issue is the rather silly ending. It feels lazy and even manipulative. There's also a really bad scene with a "rambogram" that feels like an outtake from The Naked Gun (which came out a year before this film).

Despite this, there are several great performances by Loretta Swit, Peter Cook, Ian Richardson, and as mentioned above, a funny turn by Michael "Kramer" Richards from Seinfeld. There are a few hilarious moments, mostly at the beginning of the film, but overall, it's a disappointing film.

What an utter disappointment. Forget this abysmal film and get hold of the TV series instead. What on earth were they doing making the American president relatively sane? ALL the politicians should have been bumbling buffoons (Peter Cook is good as the British PM). It lacks the biting satire of the original, going instead for "lowest common denominator" slapstick. 1 out of 10 if I'm being generous! This is unfortunately yet another example of a remake which totally misses the point of the original, the difference with this one being that they were both written by the same people.