Orders Are Orders (1954)

Truly Dreadful Film

the audience applauded

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

ORDERS ARE ORDERS is another army-focused British comedy from the 1950s and another let down. CARRY ON SERGEANT is still the best that I've seen from this era while all others feel somewhat strained and clumsy, not to mention dated. This film has a good story but not many good jokes unless exaggerated character humour is your idea of a good time.The story is about a film crew who arrive at an army barracks to shoot a science fiction movie and have various run-ins with the soldiers there. The wobbly special effects we see them filming with are funny and reminiscent of an Ed Wood movie. There's a lot of skirt-chasing and various encounters on and off the base between the characters. One of my main problems is that the film crew characters are exaggerated buffoons while the soldiers, in particular the officers, are all prim and proper and dull. The ensuing situations simply aren't all that funny in the face of it.While the likes of Margot Grahame and Raymond Huntley bag the dull lead roles, it's the supporting players who are the most interesting. Tony Hancock bags an 'introducing' credit and is his typical world-weary character. Sid James is the brash film director but struggles with his unconvincing American accent throughout. Peter Sellers plays his usual part in this and the best I can say about him is that he's better than he was in DOWN AMONG THE Z MEN. There are nice cameos for young 'uns like Donald Pleasence and Eric Sykes. The best participant is the gorgeous Maureen Swanson whose eye-popping introduction scene is the highlight of the whole movie.

Six points out of ten would be a generous rating for this disappointing movie from Tony Hancock and Peter Sellers. However, it will doubtless prove of interest to their admirers, so I include it here. The movie-making background will also strengthen the movie's appeal, while the bevy of Martian-costumed starlets is definitely another point in the film's favor. Actually, both Hancock and Sellers are wasted in minor roles that allow them few opportunities to unveil their comic talents. Another disappointment lies in the script. True, it has some plot ideas that certainly sound promising, but it fails to back them up with witty lines. Most of all, however, the movie does not have a director with the necessary skill and finesse. Time and again, promising ideas are stymied by both poor timing and an inept choice of camera angles. Sloppy film editing is also of no help. Actually, the movie could have been at least partially salvaged by sharp editing. Brian Reece's role, for instance, is of little consequence and could be severely trimmed to advantage, and so, regrettably, could Mr. Sellers' role, plus almost all of that tiresome by-play about rat traps. Fortunately, almost all of Hancock's part is still worth retaining, and we like the music score. Photography is rather flat, and despite a fairish budget, the film seems destined for the lower half of double bills.

This is a remake of the 1934 film made by Gaumont British starring James Gleason and Charlotte Greenwood.Not exactly star but actors with substantial careers on the American stage and screen.This film has a very similar script and no American stars.However it has three iconic comedy actors,James,Hancock and Sellars.However they are all defeated by the script.Hancock seems to be enjoying himself I charge of the army band.James is wildly unconvincing as the American director,and Sellers has a small part ad a bar steward.There are a lot of familiar faces such as Raymond Huntley in supporting roles,however this is is definitely a film to miss.

This a fairly unremarkable film from the era except for the presence of the two (later) major stars - but well worth seeing for the jewel of a performance from Sellers. Both went on to make their names in comedy but this meeting on film was to be the one and only. Did each or either sense that the other was a potential rival? Their parts here are completely without interaction. Thereafter their paths diverged, Sellers became a bigger and bigger name in cinema and Hancock instead found success on television. Very interesting to compare and contrast the two performers and performances. Both had had success on radio playing a wide range of characters (voices). Sellers though excelled as comic character actor of chameleon like abilities as can be seen here but was never a comedian with his own comic personna. Hancock however was more comedian than character actor other than briefly burlesqueing a range of (much) earlier British film star performers. With the aid of comedy writers Alan Simpson and Ray Galton Hancock did go on to establish a comic personna - not apparently too far away from his real self - but in time became uncomfortable surrounded by a regular cast and finally - but most memorably and successfully - became the sole star of his show. The demons however did not stop, he became dissatisfied with the character and format but was tragically unable to find a successor. Hancock was an acknowledged genius but with an elusive ill-definable talent. Here he looks uncomfortable and uncertain unsupported by a hit and miss script. He was never to find his feet in films, perhaps the validation of a live audience had been essential to calm his insecurities.In contrast Seller's performance was as complete and brilliant as it ever was, unsurprisingly he became a film star in his own right within a few short years. Few could have failed to notice his talent here as half of a crafty fiddling duo of barrack orderlies (the other half the excellent comic character actor Bill Fraser). Their short scene together about 50 minutes in, with Brian Reece as the amorous Captain, is a jewel and as complete, self-assured and accomplished as anything Sellers subsequently did for Ealing, with this part of the script at least fitting like a glove.Some reviewers scoff at the threadbare nature of the supposedly big American Sci-Fi feature shot at the barracks but this is to misunderstand almost everything. Clearly the fictional production was a very very budget affair, actual manned space flight was then still 3 years away. And Britain itself in 1954 was threadbare - rationing had only finished 2 years earlier and the film markets and actual budgets were around 10% of their American equivalents. That being said, the biggest grandest pre-war science fiction film of all "The Shape of Things to Come", was British, born apparently of a highly advantageous tax arrangement. Again, oddly, American budget sci-fi and pot-boiler feature films of this era were very adept at looking far grander than their actual budgets.For fans, watch this film to see the earliest appearance of the mega-star Sellers was to become. Either sit through or skip through the mainly "chaotic and shouty" parts another reviewer nicely describes.*Sellers had made 3 earlier films, zany unsuccessful very low budget affairs with his then {radio) "Goonshow" comrades, remembered now more for their names than the merits of the films.