Gli ospiti di mia moglie

Joan Greenwood is at her plummy best as "Lady Fitzadam", wife of a British army general who is sent on an overseas mission. She has a grand house and, quite literally, an army of servants at a time when such facilities are at a premium. So, having established that there is a small fortune to be made, she is soon in cahoots with Ian Carmichael "Cpl. Green" and Liz Fraser "Suzie" and opens up their Scottish home to wealthy Americans who want to come and try their hands at salmon fishing. It's all going quite well, money is rolling in and they are successfully fleecing their visitors - including Robert Beatty "Hoffman" and Robert Nichols "Goulansky" - until her husband (Cecil Parker) makes an unexpectedly early return bearing a letter than confirms his imminent retirement - much to their chagrin. Irked at his disgraceful treatment, the two expand their money-making scheme and even manage to rope in the visiting Minister for War (Dennis Price). It's good fun for about an hour. The the humour is gentle and subtle, the wheezes are engaging and Beatty makes for quite a fun mark, but Anthony Kimmins drags out the story for too long and by the time the usually reliable Price (and his moustache) makes his appearance, I was just a bit bored with it all. It's still a good fun adaptation of the play, but is maybe just ten years too late...?

The title sequence is phemomenally literal . We see an animated prawn wooing a mate and the sequence finishes with the mummy and daddy prawns herding their off spring away from camera . You can imagine the sequence designer being told the title of the movie by the producer and nothing else so you can't blame the guy for being so literally minded . Come on with a title like THE AMOROUS PRAWN what did you think this film was about ?

As for the rest of the movie there's little I can recall apart from Ian Carmichael being cast against type as a working class corporal and since I only saw it a few hours ago that probably tells you something of its quality . It's one of those British " Blimey where'd I leave my trousers ? " type farces featuring a bunch of squaddies pulling a scam on American tourists , too gentle to be compared to the CARRY ON franchise and too slapstick to appeal to sophisticated audiences . It's this type of unambitious movie made by studios that quickly killed off the British film industry since this years British success story was DOCTOR NO , a film that was produced and financad by Americans and appealed to a world wide audience

I first saw this film at the Odeon Temple Fortune in 1962,when I thought it be funny with a silly ending. Now it's no laughing matter. Difficult to realise that the play upon which this film is based fan for 900 performances in the West End.

Sadly not a Twitter despite a very strong cast. Cecil Parker at his dithering best. Joan Greenwood with her voice which just oozes sex. Ian Carmichael in an unethical role.as a corporal and butler. Dennis Price,with his handlebar moustache. He should have been a big star but his alchoholism meant that would never happen. Finish Currie,into his eighties,being a typical Scottish character,but alas all in vain.

The title has very little to do with anything. The "amorous prawn" is a character who appears late in the story and acts as a catalyst to solve the rather silly plot strands. The film probably kept the title because the comedy had been a long-running West End hit. The plot is quite thin: a general's wife, desperate to raise a few hundred to buy a retirement cottage, takes advantage of her husband's absence on official business to take in two Americans as paying guests. Her military staff dress up as butlers, maids etc and remove giveaways like the sentry box at the gate. The Americans are caricatured: though friendly and warm, they molest the staff and hand out huge tips and even require (the cads!) central heating. There's a lot of running about, giggling and flashes of underwear. The real enjoyment is provided by the comic skills of Ian Carmichael doing a butler act, Liz Fraser as his girlfriend, Cecil Parker and Joan Greenwood as the general and wife, and Derek Niimmo as a less than 100 per cent he-man chef. Back in 1962 homosexual acts were still criminal and gay characters were a big joke. When Niimmo gets engaged to one of the girls, Carmichael shakes his hand (which is obviously limp) and says "I didn't think you were the marrying kind!" Mr Prawn is another "comic" stereotype of the time: ex-RAF with bristling moustache, well-off, dressed smartly in blazer and gold cufflinks, middle-aged but still chasing young girls. It's all a bit naughty, ho ho! The shenanigans end abruptly with the help of some Scots waving salmon. Well, the West End audience must have had trains to catch. xxxxx

For some reason I must admit to having a soft spot for old English movies. All terribly "pukkah" and stiff upper lip, don't you know! This description even applies to the British comedies of that era, funnily enough. Which is to say that they are principally designed to appeal to the British of that era. I have to say that even if I enjoy such a movie, I mostly do not like these comedies for their humour as such. What humour there is, is all so gentle as to be practically non existent - or perhaps it only works if one is an initiate to some secret society.

This movie is like that - a kind of social history of its times. It's a rather unfunny but somehow sweet movie (all the characters are so inoffensive) that I do not regret watching it, perhaps because I am a bit of an Anglophile at heart. But I certainly would not recommend it to anyone raised on a diet of Jim Carey or Adam Sandler for example, (not that I think they are funny either...........)

It's a movie that is typical of its type and if you are into that type you may enjoy it as a way to pass a pleasant unchallenging 90 minutes.

And like most people, I am totally mystified by the title. I can only presume that "prawn" had some specific vernacular meaning back when this was made. (I have heard the term used to describe what Americans call a "patsy" but don't think that really works in this context.