Privates on Parade (1983) User Reviews (13)

not all bad ...

[didi-5 · 6/10 · 22 June 2004]

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.

Not my cup of tea!

[JohnHowardReid · 4/10 · 11 September 2016]

One the one hand, this is a peculiar blend of farce, satire, anti- establishment jokes, musical high-jinks, exaggerated character studies and ridiculously camp impersonations, with – on the other hand – romance, tragedy, realism, death and mutilation. Nevertheless, the sexual innuendo rippling through every second phrase to the point of monotony certainly gives a pointer to the overall movie's intended audiences. It would certainly take a genius to form a cohesive film from such disparate elements, but director Michael Blakemore certainly gives it a good college try. His devices include on-location filming, incorporating old newsreel footage, fading in from black-and-white to color and vice versa, and using dissolves, split screen and other mechanical devices. But it doesn't work – basically because the players won't let it work! Just about everyone in the cast has a Victor McLaglen complex and tries to out- act, out-play and out camera-hog everyone else! Worst offender is prolific TV actor Denis Quilley who made only nine or ten films, but John Cleese gives him a good run for his money. Oddly, both Quilley and Cleese are effective at times, showing how the film could have been improved if they had toned their acting down a bit.

Another problem is that the musical pastiches are supposed be second-rate, and this is how they are actually played – with enthusiasm, but also with a degree of amateurishness which is sometimes endearing (e.g. the Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers pastiche; the Flanagan and Allan skit), sometimes just amateurish (particularly the skits performed by Denis Quilley). The Carmen Miranda and Marlene Dietrich take-offs are particularly inept.

Technical credits are highly competent but the film is less effective than the sum of its parts. The finale in which everything is left up in the air is particularly unsatisfactory. Maybe this would work okay on the stage where the disparate elements could be separated by the rise and fall of the curtain. Unfortunately, neither the screenwriter nor the director have been able to come up with a similar solution to the movie.

Please, someone, help this film figure out what it wants to be

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 5/10 · 1 November 2007]

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

Underrated Gem of a Film

[Steviardo · 10/10 · 24 December 2004]

The play - and screenplay - by Peter Nichols is primarily based on his own experiences of his life in an army entertainment troupe (Combined Services Entertainment) in Singapore and on the characters in the troupe with him.(In this troupe were also British Comedy legends-to be,Stanley Baxter and Kenneth Williams) He covers the poor conditions that the artistes had to entertain under,the poor performances given by sub-standard amateurs and how it was all led by an army man with no understanding or taste for 'theatricals'.

In reading the negative reviews,the points most criticised are John Cleese's performance and the 'High Camp' element.In the original stage production,the Cleese role was played by Nigel Hawthorne and one would prefer to see him in the film as Cleese seems too close to his Basil Fawlty characterisation to really fit in with the rest of the ensemble.But he still turns in a good performance - most notably in his scenes with Elphick and Quilley.

As for the 'High Camp' element,this is a story about an entertainments unit where army personnel had to don drag for their troop shows.Add to that any theatrical setting - whether it be amateur backstage dramatics or the Moulin Rouge - and the story will have by it's very nature theatrical/camp elements.These are part and parcel of the scenario and should be accepted and expected in such a storyline.

The entire ensemble is perfectly cast.The performances are well observed and far from stereotypes.They are realistic and likable.When they are homesick,we feel it.When they are injured or killed,it is genuinely heartbreaking.Bruce Payne especially is tear-jerking as the handsome lad who can't wait to get home so he can finally make love to his girl but at the end is returning home in wheelchair and will never have sex again.

The standout performance is unquestionably the late Denis Quilley as Terri Dennis (a character loosely based on the drag performer Barri Chatt).His performance,as the only professional 'aritiste' in the company is both funny and moving.Terri is the star of the shows and his scenes as Dietrich,Vera Lynn and Carmen Miranda are brilliantly comedic,as is most of Quilley's performance as the very camp fish out of water.But it is NOT a one-note performance and Terri's character also shows incredible depth,warmth,vulnerability,strength and perhaps the most well-rounded character as a whole.It is an award-worthy performance and a good one to be remembered for.

So in a nutshell,this a comedy film that has effective dramatic moments because the acting is so flawless.It has an impressive and memorable star turn,but it still doesn't eclipse the rest of the excellent cast.It is entertaining,heart-warming and very human.

And most of all,it deserves to be better known and more widely appreciated

A wonderful bitter sweet comedy-drama

[allenblank · 9/10 · 9 May 2003]

After reading a bunch of negative reviews of this film I thought I should post my own. This is a comedy-drama, based on a theatrical play/ It is funny, sad, and serious, sometimes all at once. It has made up it's mind what type of film it's trying to be. It's about a theatrical unit doing a touring variety show in the Malayisan jungle at the very end on WWII.

It's also about a commanding officer who had missed the war and is now trying to get his taste of the war by using this unit he's in command of to fight some kind of enemy. It's also about an unscruplous sargent who is using this unit to arm the rebel soldiers and make some money on it. It's also about a poor eurasian woman who is pregnant by this sargent and has to trick another soldier to get an abortion to lose the baby.

The film does this by using humor which is something I do in my everyday life to get thru a trying day, and what's wrong with that. The one character that holds the film together is the non-military head of the acting troupe, Terry Dennis (Denis Quiley, in a award callibar performance). Terry who changes all male names to female including "Jessica Christ", and has a heart for everyone in the troupe is the glue that holds this film together. He is not a stereotype performance but a flesh and blood character. John Cleese is the colonel Blimpish officer in charge of the troupe, who doesn't really understand theatrical types, nor does he want to. Cleese is fine in the role, so is the rest of the cast including Nicola Pagget as the eurasian woman and the always wonderful Simon Jones as Eric Young-Love. Jones created his part in the original stage production, and later on played the Cleese part in a production Off-Broadway here in New York with Jim Dale as Terry Dennis. Denis Quiley and Joe Melia also created their parts in the original Royal Shakespeare production of the play.

Don't listen to the negative reviews, try this for yourselves, I think you'll like it. You may, like me, shed a tear or two before it's over, and then laugh so hard you'll fall out of your seat during the end credits.

The British CutUp in Malaysia

[zpzjones · 14 April 2004]

I enjoyed this comedy of wits and one liners. The play was recently resurrected here in the U.S. but I didn't get a chance to see it. So I ran across this movie/video not because of John Cleese of Monty Python fame but Nicola Pagett who I had seen in PBS's Upstairs Downstairs. Cleese and the other cast members win me over in this spoof of the British occupying of Malaysia in 1948. Cleese & company are a scratch lot of misfits, some veterans from WW2 others are newbies and as for Nicola Pagett she's not in the military at all even though she wears a uniform. She's called 'Acting Lieutenant' Sylvia Morgan. Very funny since being former military myself I've never heard any rank in any army designated 'Acting Lieutenant'. They are a British example of the American USO called here SADUSEE. The leader and organiser of the troupe is Denis Quiley who operates under Cleese's authority. Quiley & co. perform drag queen skits for the Brit soldiers as well as for friendly Malaysian troups. These skits are hilarious. To see Quiley(who recently passed)dressed as a Carmen Miranda type will make you rewind the tape over & over again just to believe what you had seen. Quiley is marvelous as the outrageous sissified Terry. (The end of the film is ironic but I won't give it away). Some fine Brit character actors, such as a young Bruce Payne, Michael Elphick(great as the double agent Sergeant) & John Quayle (from some Masterpiece Theatre programmings) in a brief appearance as an officer with a truck full of shot up men.

Cleese is given some great lines here as is Quiley and their performances stand out. Much of this film is sort of reminiscient of any episode of M.A.S.H. if you will. Just think of Klinger in one of his drag skits. Or even a Bob Hope series of skits gone awry. This flick sticks in your mind longer and longer after each viewing. So open your mind, dim the lights, set the popcorn(that's what I did) and let Cleese, Quiley and their band of cutups crack you up.

(** this film has a lot of profanity even though it's supposed to be an old fashioned military comedy that takes place in the 40s. The dialogue is quite spicy. And also Pagett has one bare breasted sex scene while seducing a young new intelligence recruit.)

Great film, well made, just good fun

[jerbar2004 · 8/10 · 7 March 2010]

I have seen this film about 4 or 5 times now and it gets better each time I see it. The acting is better than superb, and the plot line is well told. The colour and just the good fun of the film is a joy. When you think of the difficultly of what these "boys" had to do you must wonder in orr at how good they were. To say that this film is a gay film is just silly, everyone can enjoy it. You get a feel for all the people and when the action gets going (and you will know what I mean when you see the film) it is quiet a shock to the sytem. British flaking at its very best. I could watch this film many times and never get fed up with it.

Jolly ho, blokes!

[lee_eisenberg · 8/10 · 8 August 2005]

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.

Fans of John Cleese's comic work need not apply

[Dan_Harkless · 10 May 2001]

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.

Superb

[1bilbo · 9/10 · 3 February 2020]

This has to be watched - John Cleese is priceless as the idiot commanding officer.

In interview he once quoted an officer who congratulated him for being tall and I suspect this character was based on his army experience.

The story goes from really funny to heartrending - The closing scene with Cleese is priceless.

Must watch.

Doesn't work in the end

[Bernie-56 · 28 March 2002]

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/

It Ain't Half Hot Mum for grown ups

[timsmith37 · 8/10 · 19 March 2017]

Very surprising that this has such a low IMDb rating. I suspect that has less to do with the quality of the film than with viewers prejudices and preconceptions.

Based on Peter Nichols real life experiences it is It Ain't Half Hot Mum meets Virgin Soldiers, only much more nuanced than the one and more subversive than the other. Imagine an episode of IAHHM where Windsor Davies and Michael Knowles are running guns, Donald Hewlett has got religion, Melvyn Hayes is talented, Don Estelle has coupled up with Ken MacDonald, John Clegg is aggressively heterosexual, Stuart McGugan is a serial shagger, and Dino Shafeek is female and seduces Christopher Mitchell.

The casting of Cleese as the uptight officer is problematic, and perhaps puts the tone off kilter, but he plays the role straight (other than the surreal and cathartic scene at the end where he joins the performers to launch into his silly walks).

Patrick Pearson is effective as the young recruit, and Joe Melia, David Bamber, Bruce Payne and Simon Jones all hold their own (difficult to avoid double entendres with this review). Michael Elphick is also excellent as the tough sergeant while Nicola Pagett's Indian accent lapsing deliberately into Welsh resolves some of the criticism that might otherwise be levelled for playing blackface. The film though belongs to Dennis Quilley, the queen of the jungle.