Privates on Parade

Really, the film is as confused as some would argue the cross-dressing military units are. I'm not a fan of John Cleese. That's hardly a secret. I tolerate him on Monty Python, and I will grant that he can entertain, but as a general rule, I don't exactly make it a point to seek out his work(though I do not make as strong efforts as I could to avoid it, either... I reserve that for those that I genuinely cannot stand). This film was purchased for me by someone mistaking it for something having to do with his comedy troupe(with good cause, as its crude pun title was translated to "Python at the Front Lines"). A rather see-through attempt at passing it off as something it's not, really, as he's not joined by even a single other member of the group. One of the main problems is that this cannot seem to make up its mind on what to be; a comedy or a war-drama. Neither of them are achieved particularly effectively, separate from each other, and whenever the two are attempted at the same time, it's even worse. There are times when the war aspect seems tacked on, as if the writers were busy writing the attempts at comedy, and suddenly remember that it's set during war-time. The drama begot little emotional response from me(albeit I will admit that it did manage some, near the very end). The comedy... I don't know, it seemed to mainly consist of the flamboyantly gay character being, well, flamboyantly gay, and shining a spotlight on the fact that the men, soldiers, no less... wait for it... are wearing *dresses*. Yup. That's about it. I guess the musical numbers weren't bad. Cleese does nothing to amuse, playing it more straight than many of us were aware he was capable of. He plays someone who, at least appears to be(it's not really clear) deeply religious, and I couldn't tell if this trait was supposed to be part of the comedy or the drama aspect of the film. I don't know, if you're into musicals and/or men in drag, you may like it. I recommend this to people in either or both of the aforementioned groups(I won't stoop to the level of suggesting that those who enjoy one are highly likely to also enjoy the other), but I'm not sure who else to steer towards this. Don't watch this thinking that Cleese does what you're used to(those goofy-looking poses that you see on the cover of the home release... they're from *one* bit in the film, during the credits, which is really the only time he's Python-y). 5/10

The main problem with this movie is the over-dominating personality of John Cleese, doing his authoritarian idiot stuff as he did in Fawlty Towers and earlier in Monty Python. Trouble is, in the context of a 1940s Army entertainment unit, this characterisation is just not right. A similar scenario could be seen a decade or so earlier in TV show 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum', with Windsor Davies in what is approximately the Cleese role here. Very different and much more effective.

'Privates' does however have other compensations - good within the cast are Michael Elphick, Simon Jones, Joe Melia, David Bamber, and Nicola Pagett. Best of all is the much-missed Denis Quilley as Terri, that painted captain cavorting about and by far the funniest thing on screen.

This film might have proved funnier if the plot hadn't been ripped from "It Ain't Half Hot, Mum", which is about a gay song a dance troup in Malaya and their straight RSM. Trouble, It Ain't Half Hot was genuinely funny whereas POP can't decide whether it's British High Camp or a war film. (Of course, being High Camp, it will go straight over the heads of US audiences.)

It succeeds as a camp comedy in the beginning but fails as as a war movie. Some of the editing is risible -- looks as if the editor got a new wipe effects machine for Christmas. John Cleese reprises his role as Basil Fawlty, now in the army; he even gives us his Funny Walk from Python. Sheesh. Unfortunately he is just not a patch on the great Windsor Davies in the identical role in It Ain't Half Hot. The troup of actors is great and there are many famous faces therein.

Blooper: Although supposedly set in Singapore the actors are 'huffing' in several night scenes. Hmmm. Must have been cold at Pinewood those nights.

Summary -- Can't make up its mind what it wants to be and falls between two stools. Starts well and finishes disagreeably. A time filler only/

A bad film. It can't seem to decide whether it wants to be a goofy comedy about flamboyantly gay showtune performers or a tragic and realistic war movie. Any attempts on its part to be both at the same time are unsuccessful, in my opinion.

Big fans of John Cleese might be tempted to watch this movie thinking that Cleese is enjoyable to watch whatever he's in, but he really has nothing to work with in this material. He plays it very straight (in more ways than one) and the filmmakers don't even manage to squeak much humor out of this contrast with the other members of the performing troupe.

Skip this film.

Like "M*A*S*H" and "Good Morning, Vietnam", "Privates on Parade" shows soldiers making the best of their wartime service. In this case, a gay British platoon in 1940s Malaya messes with the rules while under orders to fight Communist insurgents. John Cleese plays their very heterosexual, very militaristic commander. In some ways, the whole movie seems like an excuse for a series of flamboyant skits, but you shouldn't find them boring. As it is a war movie, there are of course some rather disturbing scenes of battles, but the zany skits overshadow that. If only wars involved more of this! Oh, and since this is a John Cleese movie, prudish people (or anyone who does not wish to hear Jesus' name used "in vain") should avoid this movie at all costs.