Churchill: The Hollywood Years (2004) User Reviews (39)

Funny, brilliant, bold & uneven spoof of British insecurities and Hollywood excesses

[bopdog · 6/10 · 3 December 2004]

This is clearly a spoof, and therein lies its strengths and weaknesses. Overall, it's pretty funny. I recommend going to see it in a full theater, with a gang of friends out for a laugh, and with two glasses of wine or two pints inside all of you. Not more, just the two.

The jokes are plentiful, and many are sight gags, easily understood. For example, British traitor Lord W'Ruff picking up Hitler at the airport, and the entire sequence of a stalled cars, luggage, and... well, I'll skip the details so you can be surprised. But the whole 8 minutes with them is hilarious! I laughed out loud. The SS Storm Troopers in various degrees of Buckingham Palace livery is also funny, as are many other gags. A few of the gags fell flat--- such as Goehring, and Goebbels (excuse the spelling). The king was subtle and bitingly funny satire on the Monarchy. So... some gags worked, some didn't. Some required your attention, and a bit of thought, some didn't.

The weak point was the crap production values. I know it's a comedy, and part of the joy of satire and comedy is that you can do it with a low budget. Produce on a shoestring. But this movie needed a bit more than it had. They should have begged for another 5 or 10 million dollars, and brought in a bunch of CGI London blitz crowds, bombs, and something more to give it at least a veneer (even a fakey one) of the historical setting it purports to portray. Obviously, we couldn't expect "Gladiator" level cartoon graphics--- but seeing wartime London with only three actors, 4 extras, and one old lorry fell so flat that my fantasy-bone that lets me pretend and enjoy a movie was jarred and interrupted.

OK--- go see it, but be in a lightly drunk group, ready to laugh. You will laugh, and you'll have a good time. Do remember, though, that it is a S-P-O-O-F, and is supposed to be over-the-top and silly. I gave it an 8 out of 10.

Amusing enough, but inconsistent

[whiggles · 5/10 · 8 August 2005]

When taken in the right spirit, this is a pretty enjoyable film, but it has its share of problems nonetheless. Sold as a parody of the way Hollywood tends to treat actual historical events, it doesn't really live up to its promises as it only occasionally does a decent job of lampooning its subject matter. When it does, it's very funny - my favourite exchange being (paraphrased) "It's up to the Americans to save the day again!", "God, I wish I was an American!". The rest of the time, though, it seems content to simply be a wacky slapstick comedy that gets its laughs from making prominent historical figures look a little ridiculous. Sometimes this works - I adored Neve Campbell's performance as Elizabeth, as well as her hilariously overdone accent... in fact she's probably the best part of the movie - but other times it doesn't, for example with Goering and Goebbels. It also has a habit of making its jokes too obvious at times, as if writer/director Peter Richardson was afraid that audiences wouldn't get it: it's not enough for Churchill's fellow GI, an African-American, to be relegated to the role of the stereotypical black comic relief character, he actually has to point this out to us.

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

Should have been good, but isn't

[The_Void · 5/10 · 6 April 2005]

For a long time now, Hollywood have overblown things, messed with facts and just generally not been all that honest with what has made it to the screen.. You can imagine then, the producers of Churchill - The Hollywood Years sat around thinking of ways to play with this idea. Making a send-up of Hollywood by casting Christian Slater as William Churchill must have seemed like a grand idea, and after seeing the trailer I was very much all for it...but it's safe to say that the film has missed the mark, and all Churchill - The Hollywood Years really is, is a bottom drawer action spoof with very little in the way of redeeming features or funny ideas. The film basically has one running joke, which is never good for a film; but it's especially rubbish when you realise that this joke isn't even capitalised on to the extent that it could have been. The film seems to be happy to just rely on giggles rather than big laughs, and only about half of these giggles work; and only about a quarter of the ones that work garner any kind of substantial laugh factor. This film isn't exactly sidesplitting.

One thing that definitely is to this movie's credit is the casting of Christian Slater in the lead role. Slater has made a lot of rubbish lately, and while this film isn't good; at least he's good in it. Slater gives Winston Churchill just the right essence of the standard 'American hero' and seeing him "kick butt" is always a pleasure. Well...it would be if the action sequences weren't so tacky. It's more local theatre than Hollywood. One miscasting is Neve Campbell as the queen of Britain. I'm a fan of Neve, and liked her a lot in the likes of 'Scream' and 'Wild Things', but here she just makes a fool of herself. Her British accent is stupid in the extreme and her performance isn't convincing at all. Like many British productions, this one has hired just about every British comedian going for various roles, and this doesn't do the film any favours in my opinion. Their caricatures are largely unfunny and it's obvious that they're only in the film so that they've got something to do. It's a huge shame that this film isn't very good as it could have been a nice little parody. Oh well.

Who put blood or sweat into this thing?

[funkfan-1 · 25 December 2005]

One hint about "Churchill: The Hollywood Years": Ask around . . . no one's seen it. Cooler heads probably managed to mothball this seeming direct-to-airline release. (I sat through it having run out of other on-demand options during a very long flight from Asia to NYC.) The premise in an interesting one, not a good one; Hollywood producers have made a Winston Churchill bio-pic with a young American GI (Christian Slater) in the lead for the benefit of the American audience. It's hard to single out the writing, acting, or direction for criticism because the entire film seems to consist of (justified) outtakes from a movie that may have had some idea what it was doing in the comic space between "Airplane" and "The Player." The film that finally makes it on to the seatback in front of you is jaw droppingly ill-conceived.

Criminal waste of comic talent

[Tony-166 · 2/10 · 6 June 2005]

The idea probably looked quite funny on paper, but sadly this film fails to deliver any real laughs at all. What is the point of having all those comedy giants in the movie, but not actually giving them anything particularly funny to say or do. You can see that this could have been so much better. The director, Peter Richardson, has touched on this theme before in the genuinely funny, "Strike!". That film spoofed how Hollywood might just treat a big screen adaptation of the 1984 UK miners strike. It is spot on. But this is just so wide of the mark. I give credit to the cast, who seemed to be doing their best with a pretty mediocre script. Christian Slater at least gave his part his best shot, and he did have some of the better dialogue. It just seems that there wasn't enough to go round. A tragedy.

Avoid at all costs

[AwwDannyBhoy · 1/10 · 30 December 2004]

It is difficult to find words to describe this unique piece - drivel, garbage, insulting rot, juvenile nonsense, are all in contention. The sixth-form inspired premise of the whole piece must have reduced its writers to rollicking heaps of tear-gushing side-splitting guffaws behind the bike shed, but to put this in front of an audience that shares even a single GCSE amongst its number is simply insulting. It is badly written, badly directed and utterly without artistic merit. The performances are flat where they are not hackneyed. Harry Enfield and Rick Mayall do what they have always done - nothing new here - but why did they agree to lend their talents to this drivel, garbage, insulting rot, juvenile nonsense? Avoid at all costs.

Worse than the Blitz

[rochdale-1 · 1/10 · 20 January 2006]

**Might contain spoilers, although i can't believe that it's possible to spoil this rubbish** The mere fact that this film currently has a rating of 5.3 is a joke. It deserves no more than 2. It's a useless film, lacking any humour and most of all any story. The idea itself isn't the worst. Do a comedy where Winston Churchill was an flashy American rather than the strong and alcoholic British war leader we all know and respect. To take this half decent idea and turn it into the single worst comedy of all time is unforgivable. Most of the so called comedy performances are woeful, Vic and Bob - who once used to be funny! - are pathetic. There is hardly any story, and what story there is either makes no sense or is so bad you'd rather it wasn't there at all. Christian Slatter! You're having a Barry!!!! Just about everything in this film stinks, even the title stinks. The one joke which doesn't want to make you vomit your face off involves your stereotypical British failure of transport. Don't expect it to make you laugh, or even chuckle, you may rise a little smile.

I purchased the DVD having been assured off a friend that it is funny, that person has since told me he was "having a laugh". I now refuse to speak to him. The DVD currently lies at the bottom of a pile of crap DVDs which contains woeful entertainment such as Extras, Teen Wolf Too (+ teen wolf, which is okay), Bo Selecta series 3, The day after tomorrow, Jaws 2, 3, 4 and Licence to Drive. Yes this film is worse than Jaws 3! I do plan on either burning it or perhaps giving it away, so if anyone wants this pile of crap then drop me an email, i'd be delighted to hand it over - so long as you don't hold me responsible for any negative effect it will have on your brain - and i'd be delighted to pay the postage to get rid of the rubbish.

..So yeah, i think this film is useless. If i could give it Zero it'd get zero, but since the lowest i can give it is 1, that is what it's getting. It doesn't even get an extra point for being "so bad, it's good" because quite frankly, its so bad its worse than bad. We're talking Santa with Muscles here, kids.

'Carry On' is dead.......long live Pete Richardson

[lazyaceuk · 7/10 · 29 May 2007]

I'd had this sat on my shelf for a while having bought it as part of a job lot of DVDs. But I was pleasantly surprised.

The film is much more clever than it seems with several in jokes and knowing nods to those who know there 'Comic Strip' and also enjoy taking the mickey out of jingoism, of any nation. To those who don't get that this is a satire more than a parody, note the way that 'Churchill' delivers the Enigma machine to Lord W'ruff within one of the first few scenes.

So it's not rip roaring - so what ? If you want the same old re-heated jokes then the Scary Movie franchise is probably more up your street. This is more the Pete Richardson of 'The Strike' or 'GLC'. It's brave of film producers to throw money at this kind of production, rather than letting it fall to TV and have to make compromises. The money is on the screen. It's a good time film.

For me Reeves and Mortimer play perfectly to form in their hammy cameos. Slater gets the joke and takes a leaf from Charlie Sheen and the Hot Shots movie. The only disappointment is that Miranda Richardson is so under used.

Not a popcorn film for the modern world of MTV and Big Brother, but certainly one worth watching just the once as a balance against the Michael Bay whore fests such Pearl Harbour or Armageddon.

Possibly one of the worst films ever made

[James CN · 1/10 · 1 December 2004]

I saw a screening of this film about 10 months before general release, so they may have managed to rectify some of the many faults with this film, but I don't know if that's possible.

The film has about 1 laugh in it, and even then, it's more a titter than a laugh out loud.

The film has an interesting premise, and could have been a funny look at how Hollywood re-writes history when Churchill is more film-friendly as a Navy Seal played by Christian Slater (not a spoiler, you find out in the second minute!), however it quickly goes off and you forget this is what the film's about, and it's just one cringing gag after another.

Save your money - don't watch this, don't get the DVD, and don't even bother recording off the TV.

When I saw the screening, I thought this would be straight to TV, no idea how it made it to the box office.

With all respect, you seem to have missed the point....

[Kenny_Mackay21 · 7/10 · 30 June 2005]

I have to admit that I didn't expect to like this movie but actually it was a pleasant surprise. I think the fact that some of the dialogue clunked terribly added to the humour. The premise is ridiculous, yes, but it is so for a reason. The people making this film don't expect you to take it seriously, it's not a history lesson. The film delights in sending up stock Hollywood clichés, the token black guy, the Americans saving the world etc, and I would suggest it as a tonic to anyone who had just endured "Hollywood history" dross like Pearl Harbour or U-571. The script contains some cracking one-liners and there is a pretty great British cast. Having Hitler to stay at the palace is an inspired piece of comic invention and the story with the princess parodies Mel Gibson's Braveheart sub-plot quite hilariously The absurdity of the movie is what saves it, if they had gone and made a half hearted effort it would never have gotten to film. Give it a go.

occasionally hilarious, but goes stale fast

[TheNorthernMonkee · 4/10 · 2 June 2005]

SPOILERS Everyone knows Hollywood can't do history. Often altering facts to suit a plot, nothing is sacred. Pete Richens and Peter Richardson know this and resurrecting an old idea originally done in 1982's "The Comic Strip Presents", the two teamed up to write a film poking fun at it. Creating an 84 minute long film entitled "Churchill: The Hollywood Years", the two men managed to get a wide array of British talent to work along with major stars Christian Slater and Neve Campbell to spoof Hollywood's ideals. Sadly though, this film, whilst occasionally jaw numbing in it's hilarity, is just one long joke which goes stale after the first 10 minutes and should have been made as a half an hour special instead.

Imagine the British Government changed history after the second World War. Hiring an actor called Roy Bubbles to play leader Winston Churchill, they hid that Churchill was actually an American Marine (Christian Slater). This fact has remained hidden until now and in "Churchill: The Hollywood Years" we finally learn the truth.

The general idea for "Churchill: The Hollywood Years" is a wonderful idea. A spoof of historical films, for the first ten minutes you do genuinely find yourself in tears of laughter at the idea that Hollywood could create such a film. Unfortunately though, then the film continues for another 74 minutes.

That's not to say that we aren't still given some joyous moments as the film progresses. David Schneider as Goebels is a particular favourite, as is Phil Cornwell as evil blonde Nazi Martin Boorman. Unfortunately though Schneider is only on screen briefly and Cornwell is not present constantly.

As far as regular cast go, Christian Slater does a good job as Churchill. Never taking himself seriously, he runs around with his top off saving the day. Neve Campbell as well as Princess Elizabeth is equally as good. Presenting the Princess as wanting to help the war effort but naive, her accent might be slightly infuriating at times, but mostly she successfully portrays the Hollywood equivalent of the current Queen.

The problem though is that like the plot in general, so many actors are wasted with one line jokes. Antony Sher as Hitler is well up to the task, but because of the limitations on options, he never really shines like he can. The same is true of Miranda Richardson as Eva Braun, Rik Mayall as a British officer, Leslie Phillips as Nazi sympathiser Lord W'ruff and Steve Pemberton as Elizabeth's servant Chester. All are renowned actors who can perform admirably, but none are really given the chance.

Perhaps the biggest sufferer in "Churchill: The Hollywood Years" though is Harry Enfield. Playing King George VI, Enfield is well up to the task of being the deaf old King. Unfortunately, both for Enfield, the film and Britain as a whole, the real life equivalent of George V is not that well known to people. Whilst obviously everyone will know who Hitler, Churchill and Elizabeth are, few people are going to actually remember George. The old King was on the throne through the entire War but died in 1952. Whilst there are still many people who were alive at the time, it's incredibly unlikely that the probable audiences of this film will know much about him. This is in itself a shame since history is important, but it feels likely for this film.

As well as the irony that certain real historical figures might not be that well known to target audiences, the major problem with "Churchill: The Hollywood Years" is just that it grows old too fast. Funny for it's first 10 minutes, the film soon drifts off into repeating the same joke over and over. It probably will have been better as a short sketch on a television programme. Still, nice idea, shame it didn't work.

Great Cast, Great Humour, Great Movie

[neildevany · 10/10 · 5 December 2004]

On entering the cinema to see this film today, I had very low expectations for this film. Leaving the cinema, I felt entertained, amused and not robbed of my £5.30.

I expected this film to be a gung-ho version of how the Americans saw the war. That is what I got, but the film really poked fun at the state of mega-budget American Historcal dramas. The whole idea of the film was excellent, the story, although very thin was laced with excellent set jokes and well placed one liners.

This is clearly a British Film. The whole look of the film was British. A large proportion of the cast were British. If you are British, have a basic knowledge of WW2 and a British sense of humour, you will love it.

You only have to look at the cast, see what sort of film you are getting. From the British comedy front Steve Pemberton and Mackenzie Crook shone.

Overall, this is by no means the greatest or funniest film of the year, but if you want a typically British movie go and see it!

Enjoyable Spoof

[HairyMart1 · 7/10 · 4 December 2004]

Great idea - overplayed in places, but still enjoyable.

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 !

This is complete crap!

[cyb__ · 1/10 · 26 July 2005]

Completely stupid film! Awful directing, awful script, poor acting. I can't understand how they convinced Campbell, Slater and other more or less know actors to do this! The only actor delivering is Rick Mayall doing the only part he ever plays. But can't blame the actors for this, they have nothing to work with. It seems like the script was made by a thirteen year old boy that threw in what a boys mind at that age consider "cool", some shooting, a few fart jokes, slapstick and some sex jokes. Not only are the joke bad, I have seen it all before done much better. It it like they stole most scenes from other movies and rerecorded them for their own film. Never seen such a bad movie! The only laugh I got was from the bloopers at the end credits. Avoid at all costs! Really it is that bad. Not so bad it is funny, just bad.

Messy and awkward but a good idea that has amusing moments even if the total is less than the sum of its many parts

[bob the moo · 2 March 2008]

The Hollywood version of the American involvement in World War II starts with the arrival in the Isle of Mann, sorry, England, of American soldier Winston Churchill. Churchill has heard of the Nazi armies sweeping across Europe and is keen to help despite being met by an air of total indifference by the British, who seem to be almost welcoming Hitler into their country. Befriending Princess Elizabeth gets him in the door but with incompetence and gayness all around him, Churchill must take a stand and win this war for America!

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.

Avoid this...

[vaginaljesus · 3/10 · 26 January 2006]

This film is a turd, and I hated it!

I expected it to be good, based on what I'd read. I sat down to watch it, believing that I was about the watch a well-thought-out and memorable comedy. In place, I was given completely forgettable and very much predictable drudgery.

The expected humour was replaced with petulant slapstick that would fail to entertain anyone over 12, Hitler-jokes that've been used a million times before, a plot that rips off several superior action-comedies of the last decade; leaving me with a subtle desire that the Germans had won so I wouldn't have had to watch this tripe. Chris Slater is completely out of step with the nature of the film, and was very much the wrong choice for the role, although the King and, naturally, Rik Mayall are among the strong (and actually funny) performances. Churchill: the Hollywood years fails not only to deliver comedy, but also makes no comment on, or parody of the Hollywood history that spawned its' creation. Given the thoroughly unfunny nature of the speech, I'm guessing that the scriptwriters were Germans, who are of course noted for their lack of humour.

One trick pony

[Zog180 · 4/10 · 4 December 2004]

Well, where to start...

This film had so much promise but simply fails to deliver. It has one joke that is its premise, but the script is just terrible. I think I laughed about 4 times during the entire film. I just cannot understand how this script could've been allowed to have been made into a film. It seemed like someone thought-up quite a funny idea and then thought "oh, instead of being a quite funny sketch or two, let's make it a film". Thus, it's dragged out and the script is filled with loads of 'jokes' which just don't work. It's quite watchable; the acting is quite good, but that's not enough to save it. It's a spoof, a parody, but it isn't a comedy. That may seem oxymoronic, but it's a fact. I'd hoped for something as good as Naked Gun or Airplane; I didn't get it. As hard as the actors tried, the film just can't escape the fact that it has so little substance that it ends up a major disappointment.

Absolute rubbish

[Donald07 · 2/10 · 10 January 2005]

This film was awful, AWFUL! It makes jokes out of the British, particularly the English, and myself being Scottish I should be content with that, but I was not. The jokes in the film were not especially funny, nor clever, and some of them just crude. The film really just bored me senseless, it was quite confusing at times, plus Neve Campbell does a rank English accent. The only enjoyable part of the film in my opinion was watching John Culshaw do his fabulous impression of Tony Blair like he does in Dead Ringers. All in all this was the worst movie that I watched in 2004, and expect that the director should be shot(!)... only joking.

"I Wish I Was American"

[MobileMotion · 6/10 · 7 December 2004]

A patchy British send-up of the way Hollywood rewrites history in favour of America.

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.

absolute travesty!

[howdareyou-1 · 1/10 · 28 February 2006]

I sat down to watch this film knowing full well that it was a spoof. I was prepared for cheap laughs and a flimsy plot. But nothing could have prepared me for what i have to say is one of the worst films i have ever seen. The only real comic performances are provided by Harry Enfield and Rik Mayall. This film should and deserves to be left well alone. The ideas behind the film have good comic intentions but poor performances leave these opportunities unexplored. Camera work is shoddy and sets lacking in detail.I watched three quarters of this film and could not bear to watch anymore as an actor it insulted me. I someone asked me to watch this film again i would most likely scream and run away!

Doing what Hollywood does to history

[palmerkaren21 · 7/10 · 22 January 2009]

This was on TV a last week. When it was in the cinema it received lukewarm reviews. I'd recommend this film as its bold, funny and knows how to hit its targets.. Clearly a spoof it relies on making continuous references to Hollywood style heroics and puts itself in a straitjacket as result. Preventing the film from stretching out to further plot ideas. The script written by the team who did a series of previous films and famous for 4 Weddings and a Funeral know how to write jokes but it suffered from their problems in their last films of needing more production money and another writer to give a different angle on the humour.

One very good recurring joke is Hitler being confused for Charlie Chaplin but even that wasn't used to its full potential. The biggest let down with this film is that you can see that it needed more money pumped into the filming of it.

1st time negative !!!!!

[t-excel · 3/10 · 4 September 2005]

This is gonna be the first time i'm gonna be negative about a movie. The only good thing about is, is Christian Slater & Neve Campbell. Why would they work on a project like this ???? I Love reading & watching documentaries about history & i'm a movie junkie, but this work is total Sh*t. the reason i voted 3 was because of Christian Slater, Neve Campbell & there where like 2 or 3 funny moments. So for every funny moment in it, there one point. But Basically i lost 81 minutes of my life. one thing about crappy movies is, it makes the other ones look so... much better. why would the local block buster even rent out these things. i don't even know what to wright Any more. And usually i can ramble on for pages about a movie. well that was it then, ladies and gents...i'm out

Incredible movie, must see!

[Elori · 9/10 · 23 November 2008]

If you've seen one Hollywood action blockbuster too many, then you need to see Churchill on top of it. 'Churchill: the Hollywood Years' mercilessly pokes fun at American action movies, war adaptations, Nazis, and of course the British themselves, with the whole premise being to have fun with Royal Family and the iconic British leader Winston Churchill. Suffice it to say, it hits the mark spot on. It's absurd, crazy comedy at its best, meticulously going through the motions of generic action movie plot lines and showing how ridiculous they and their predetermined plot arches are. Amid all the rapid-fire comedic jabs and gags we see great parody performances, especially Harry Enfield's King George VI. If you're not laughing out loud by the big climax, you could be British, or worse, German!

Apart from Churchill its factually correct and makes history fun!

[sjl004 · 7/10 · 26 June 2009]

Big British cast, fun to seem the cameos and despite cheap stunts/sets and some gags it wasn't disappointing or a waste. It was a neat trimmed budget goof-ball romp! So Churchill is someone else and the "real one" is an American GI and its funny as you wonder whether thats the case during the film. The performance by Neve Campell as the Queen (or Princes Elizabeth) to be correct is great, and the side casting and their characters is top notch. The gag reel at the end is good to see but some may think it had to be included to justify more laughs but its a comedy so why not!

I'm hesitating seeing this film but its so short and so easy to watch its a casual relaxed way to spend 84 minutes.

Churchill was a rotter this films no better

[belfasttbloke · 1/10 · 20 October 2005]

Christian slater comedy?? aye OK! i'll rent it on DVD and i'm glad i paid 3 quid instead of 6 for watching it in the flicks. This is a steaming pile of utter dung. I watched the first half hour of this film and hated every minute of it. It was excruciating to see Christian Slater act in this dung. The script was dung the acting was excrement.

I didn't know it was a British comedy before i rented it, i now wish i knew beforehand. Peter Richardson writer/director/whatever formerly of the "comic strip presents" knows nothing about comedy. British comedy hasn't been worthwhile since the Boulting brothers and Ealing studios quite easily threw out genuine classics!. In short this film had no direction script stars or anything worthwhile to recommend it. The film should be re-titled "lets get every Z list name from British TV and mug at the camera"...I wouldn't give peter Richardson 10 quid to direct a claims4u advert. Christian Slater you should hang your head in shame!