Churchill: The Hollywood Years
- 2004
- 1h 24min
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn this irreverent parody, the British court and war government consist mainly of idiots and/or traitors. Hitler moves into Buckingham palace and plans to marry into the Windsors. A US Army ... Tout lireIn this irreverent parody, the British court and war government consist mainly of idiots and/or traitors. Hitler moves into Buckingham palace and plans to marry into the Windsors. A US Army officer claims the cigar-smoking iconic PM was an actor, Ray Bubbles, impersonating his ow... Tout lireIn this irreverent parody, the British court and war government consist mainly of idiots and/or traitors. Hitler moves into Buckingham palace and plans to marry into the Windsors. A US Army officer claims the cigar-smoking iconic PM was an actor, Ray Bubbles, impersonating his own father, USMC lieutenant Winston Churchill, a genius spy who stole an enigma code machine... Tout lire
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
- Reporter 3
- (as James Puttnam)
- Lieutenant Baker
- (as Tom Clarke-Hill)
Avis à la une
Despite terrible reviews I decided to give this film a try and what I found was a reasonable enough comedy that just doesn't have the material to stand up to be what it tries to be. The concept is sound as it is a nice little spoof of all those films that rewrite history to sell tickets not just an American habit by any means, but market saturation alone means they stand out as doing it the most! The joke is a good one and it does produce some intermittent laughs along the way but it really struggles to convince as a "motion picture". In fact watching it all I could thing was that this would have worked if it could have been a presentation of The Comic Strip rather than a film, because that way it could have overplayed and existed on its own terms that heading telling the audience that things that might be considering failings are actually fine. Looking it up on IMDb later and what do I find but that this was written and directed by none other than Peter Richardson from the Comic Strip! And I think this is the problem, Richardson has come up with a good idea but he has not had the Comic Script route to go with it and as a result has had to make it into a film, where the weaknesses and dips are rather exposed. It is a shame but the end result is still quite amusing albeit it rather messy and overly ambitious.
The starry cast certainly must have hoped for more because of the volume of people go are involved, just a shame that all their individual moments tend to stand as individual moments rather than flowing together. Slater gets the tone and gives a good performance, with Campbell OK but not as into it. I think these two must have been the only people to be on the set for longer than a week because other than them the support cast is a constant state of flux. Reeves & Mortimer, Enfield, Mayall, Phillips, Crook, Day, Culshaw, Cornwell, Sally Phillips, Schneider and a few others they are mixed but generally they are good value and it is just a shame then that the film as a whole package is not as clever nor as funny as some of the specific moments are.
Overall then this is far from being as bad as some would have you believe it is but to appreciate it you really do need to have been a fan of the Comic Strip films from years ago. The concept is good and the cast is heavy with talent but unfortunately Richardson cannot pull it all together to the degree that is required. An amusing and messy try that is fun at times.
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.
If they'd have been a bit more subtle in places they'd have made a better film. Performances of Neve Campbell as Princess Elizabeth and Phil Cornwall as Martin Boreman (with a great east-end accent) really stand out. Pity they didn't have time to develop some of the supporting roles especially the irish cockney of Mackenzie Crook and Miranda Richardson as Eva Braun
One to look back on laugh. Just wish they could do a sequel but in reverse - the British all action hero Churchill saving America from the Communist threat !
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.
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
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesWhen King George VI says, "I'll get her [Princess Elizabeth] to marry a Greek or someone," this is a reference to Elizabeth II's real-life marriage to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who was born in Greece as the son of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark.
- GaffesA royal servant throws Prince Mario's gift into a sack. The same gift reappears back in the royal servant's hand immediately after, only to be re-thrown into the same sack - in the same manner as before.
- Citations
Lord W'ruff: I want you to take this to the King's bedroom.
[hands him a book]
Bendle: Oh?
Lord W'ruff: Place it beside his bed.
Bendle: 'Me in Kamp F'. What's this, a gay prison story?
Lord W'ruff: No, it's 'Mein Kampf'. It's by a German. Full of interesting ideas. Make sure the King sees it.
- Crédits fousOne extra scene and several outtakes are shown during the end credits.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Top Gear: Hammond Invents People Carrier Racing (2004)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Churchill: The Hollywood Years?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Çakma başkan Hollywood'da
- Lieux de tournage
- Oldway Mansion, Paignton, Devon, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(as Buckingham Palace)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 529 546 $US
- Durée
- 1h 24min(84 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1