A Cuckoo in the Nest

Given that almost the entire film concerns a pretty flimsy mix-up, there is quite a bit of humor here. There are some great one-liners, some great mugging to the camera, and some outrageous accents. The father in particular does a great job of not overplaying the "drunk" scenes, but instead really adds pathos to a fairly thankless role.

Tom Walls is an unlikely hero; he's not particularly handsome, (or to be frank, funny), but he does have charisma and he brings a lightheartedness to the film that is refreshing considering the kind of frustrations the plot introduces.

I was pretty amazed at the level of sexual innuendo here too, very open. Totally worth catching if you get the chance.

The situation used in this film must have been well worn when this film was released.So there is no a great deal of humour to be extracted from the situation.I am not to fond of Tom Walls as he tends to overact all the time.since he is the director of this film there is no one to restrain him.The only funny thing about him is his hair do.It looks as if he has had his hair in curlers all night.Ralph Lynn is the same in all the films.Unfortunately Robertson Hare only has a small part in this film.Yvonne Arnaud is the female foil and she is quite funny but not enough to save this film.If you have nothing better to do then it is worth watching.Otherwise there are better farces than this particularly from the aldwych team.

The live Brian Rix plays were special nights on TV for me in the '60's and I've always found plenty to savour and enjoy in the farces written by Ben Travers; this certainly is no exception. First staged in 1925 it was the second of what turned out ultimately to be twelve farces of variable quality produced by Tom Walls at the Aldwych Theatre in London – the film has its faults but brought together most of the original cast. You veer from sly coyness to coy slyness in an expert company who all looked as if they enjoyed every manic moment – and why not, they were merely re-enacting for the camera a previously huge stage success. And they filmed this and the other Aldwych farces to try to save them for posterity...

On an unfulfilled visit to the Bunters one ridiculous incident leads to another and a married man and married woman find themselves sharing a hotel bedroom as husband and wife with all the assumed moral conjugal rights that might bring. And all the moral outrage it can bring when their innocent subterfuge unravels. I notice that as usual the previous commenter disliked the film – what a rotten life it must be never to watch a film you like! But I would admit that you maybe have to be in a good mood to properly enjoy this as concentration can be required to fathom the then moral complexities of the stream of sexual and alcoholic double-entendres. There's an incessantly sparkling dialogue, usually broad often witty silly humour but also some occasional flat stretches that can leave you squirming (sometimes sympathetically); for example silly ass Ralph Lynn testing the bedroom for floor draughts to Yvonne Arnaud's shrill laughter but then taking an age to get comfortable under the washstand. However, I laughed out loud many times but afterwards hardly knew why because everything is so inconsequential. Hell – pardon the profanity – it's very often beautiful stuff and nonsense! Everyone is markedly eccentric but Tom Walls piles it on as the red-nosed tipsy father-in-law to the bumbling Lynn and as the head of a farcically dysfunctional family; Robertson Have A Care Hare plays the well meaning motorbiking but under-oiled vicar; Cecil Parker, Roger Livesey and Frank Pettigell had smaller roles.

Sadly the understanding and appreciation of this art form has been almost completely extinguished by the onslaught of permissiveness. Although I remember seeing it when I was young I assume that the BBC junked their TV adaptation of it long ago; however interesting it might be to see it again it could hardly hold a candle to this version anyway.

This nonsense actually made me laugh: not an easy task! It's a film version of a massively successful stage comedy from the 1920s which spurred another 11 sequels. You'll be amazed that something this old can be this funny.

Those Brian Rix farces such as DON'T JUST LIE THERE and even today's THE PLAY THAT GOES WRONG can probably trace their comedy roots back to this, the grand-daddy on all those farces. This has to be one of the silliest films I've ever seen. The characters are all purposely absurd stereotypes (who appeared in all the sequels too) but since this team had been doing this same act for 15 years, they knew exactly how to make us laugh.

Ralph Lynn is perfect as the loveable upper class twit, complete with monocal and silly accent. He actually reminded me of Richard Murdoch... you know, Stinker Murdoch? Or Number 2 in the fantastic radio comedy, THE MEN FROM THE MINISTRY? If you have any idea whom I'm talking about then this is your film! Even if you've no idea who I'm talking about, you'll know Will Hay. This isn't (if you can believe it) as sophisticated as a Will Hay picture but it's that kind of humour. It's genuinely funny.

The only down side is that the leader of this group of nutters was Tom Walls (who in this plays the drunk, hen-pecked father in law) who certainly was talented but also a pretty lousy film director. Apparently he drove Michael Balcon, who was running Gaumont-British at the time, mad with his 'amateurish' approach to film making but because his plays were so massive, he wasn't going to argue with him (too much). The direction is indeed pretty dire - if this was any other picture, it might matter but here it's just not important.

"A Cuckoo in the Nest" is a bit hard to watch because of the strong English accents. However, as we Americans have been sending our movies to the UK for decades, I think I have little reason to complain. Still, some closed captions for this film might help a bit.

When the story begins, a husband and wife are taking a rail journey. The husband gets off the train, briefly, to buy something and gets distracted when he meets an old lady friend. In the process, he and the lady miss the train...and the wife helplessly looks from the train and sees them. They give chase in a car but when the car breaks down in the middle of nowhere, the pair are forced to talk to the nearest inn to find a room. Unfortunately, there is only one room and the pair pretend to be married to each other in order to get the room.

Does all of this seem to be a bit naughty if taken the wrong way? Of course. And when the wife's parents give chase, they eventually end up at the same inn. The mother-in-law is an old prude and assumes there's been hanky-panky. The father-in-law, on the other hand, is a nice guy...a drunk...but a nice guy. And, judging by his wife, I can see why he drinks! He tries his best to help out...and there is a funny scene where he pretends to be high daughter so the husband can rehearse what he's planning on saying to her. What comes of all this? See the film.

This is a clever little comedy where you have two completely faithful spouses who are stuck in a dilemma because so much makes it appear as if they are having a tryst. Very clever writing...and I really enjoyed the father-in-law...he was a hoot!