The Amorous Mr. Prawn (1962) User Reviews

Are You Being Serviced?

[boblipton · 6/10 · 27 August 2020]

General Cecil Parker's last posting is somewhere in the remotest part of Scotland. He and his wife, Joan Greenwood, are looking forward to their retirement, but the government has gotten niggardly with its superannuated heroes, and their are trying to come up with extra money to make their post-army life more comfortable. Miss Greenwood suggests selling off some army equipment and pocketing the ready, which shocks the general. He's off to America to witness some tests, so while he is gone, she turns the estate they are living on into a guest house, with the connivance of Corporal Ian Carmichael as majordomo, and giggling Liz Fraser as the housemaid. Various other army personnel fill in roles, and the tips from lecherous Americans keep everyone happy.

It's hard to tell whether this Bilko-like service comedy is meant to satirize the peacetime army, the ugly American, or the venality of modern society. Perhaps it's all three. The mechanical farcical elements are well handled, and Miss Greenwood's posh accents contrast beautifully with her mercenary attitude. Antony Kimmins' direction is snappy and silly, and that, at its heart, seems saddest of of. Still, viewed as a heartless comedy, it is certainly funny.

Only for those who have a soft spot for 1950s English movies

[peterm1 · 6/10 · 1 April 2011]

For some reason I must admit to having a soft spot for old English movies. All terribly "pukkah" and stiff upper lip, don't you know! This description even applies to the British comedies of that era, funnily enough. Which is to say that they are principally designed to appeal to the British of that era. I have to say that even if I enjoy such a movie, I mostly do not like these comedies for their humour as such. What humour there is, is all so gentle as to be practically non existent - or perhaps it only works if one is an initiate to some secret society.

This movie is like that - a kind of social history of its times. It's a rather unfunny but somehow sweet movie (all the characters are so inoffensive) that I do not regret watching it, perhaps because I am a bit of an Anglophile at heart. But I certainly would not recommend it to anyone raised on a diet of Jim Carey or Adam Sandler for example, (not that I think they are funny either...........)

It's a movie that is typical of its type and if you are into that type you may enjoy it as a way to pass a pleasant unchallenging 90 minutes.

And like most people, I am totally mystified by the title. I can only presume that "prawn" had some specific vernacular meaning back when this was made. (I have heard the term used to describe what Americans call a "patsy" but don't think that really works in this context.

My, what an interesting hotel!

[mark.waltz · 5/10 · 27 January 2021]

When her soon to be retired general husband Cecil Parker heads over to the United States while she's supposed to be closing the house up so they can retire to the country, Lady Joan Greenwood turns their large home into a hotel to raise some extra money. No sooner has she gotten some established long-term paying guests, Parker returns, turning everything upside down before finding out the truth.

With Parker's right-hand man Ian Carmichael acting as the major domo, several female staffers acting as chambermaids and the cook becoming a temperamental chef (creating pretentious meals), various lascivious American guests and suspicious neighbors and officials, it's a complicated situation to resolve everything.

Amusing if quickly forgettable comedy of errors and manners has some nice bits of farce and wacky situations, this is a fun time filler but nothing special among the many similar types of British sexual comedies. But the performances are good, and individual characterizations provide some laughs such as the chef who looks like he's going to burst into tears at any moment and the large Scottish official suspecting something up and determined to figure it out. Glamorous Greenwood is very charming and makes all the unbelievable situations she finds herself in a bit more palatable.

Funny in parts, but dated

[lucy-19 · 23 April 2004]

The title has very little to do with anything. The "amorous prawn" is a character who appears late in the story and acts as a catalyst to solve the rather silly plot strands. The film probably kept the title because the comedy had been a long-running West End hit. The plot is quite thin: a general's wife, desperate to raise a few hundred to buy a retirement cottage, takes advantage of her husband's absence on official business to take in two Americans as paying guests. Her military staff dress up as butlers, maids etc and remove giveaways like the sentry box at the gate. The Americans are caricatured: though friendly and warm, they molest the staff and hand out huge tips and even require (the cads!) central heating. There's a lot of running about, giggling and flashes of underwear. The real enjoyment is provided by the comic skills of Ian Carmichael doing a butler act, Liz Fraser as his girlfriend, Cecil Parker and Joan Greenwood as the general and wife, and Derek Niimmo as a less than 100 per cent he-man chef. Back in 1962 homosexual acts were still criminal and gay characters were a big joke. When Niimmo gets engaged to one of the girls, Carmichael shakes his hand (which is obviously limp) and says "I didn't think you were the marrying kind!" Mr Prawn is another "comic" stereotype of the time: ex-RAF with bristling moustache, well-off, dressed smartly in blazer and gold cufflinks, middle-aged but still chasing young girls. It's all a bit naughty, ho ho! The shenanigans end abruptly with the help of some Scots waving salmon. Well, the West End audience must have had trains to catch. xxxxx

Nothing To Do With Sea Food

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 10 August 2005]

The title sequence is phemomenally literal . We see an animated prawn wooing a mate and the sequence finishes with the mummy and daddy prawns herding their off spring away from camera . You can imagine the sequence designer being told the title of the movie by the producer and nothing else so you can't blame the guy for being so literally minded . Come on with a title like THE AMOROUS PRAWN what did you think this film was about ?

As for the rest of the movie there's little I can recall apart from Ian Carmichael being cast against type as a working class corporal and since I only saw it a few hours ago that probably tells you something of its quality . It's one of those British " Blimey where'd I leave my trousers ? " type farces featuring a bunch of squaddies pulling a scam on American tourists , too gentle to be compared to the CARRY ON franchise and too slapstick to appeal to sophisticated audiences . It's this type of unambitious movie made by studios that quickly killed off the British film industry since this years British success story was DOCTOR NO , a film that was produced and financad by Americans and appealed to a world wide audience

Unfunny

[malcolmgsw · 3/10 · 10 March 2024]

I first saw this film at the Odeon Temple Fortune in 1962,when I thought it be funny with a silly ending. Now it's no laughing matter. Difficult to realise that the play upon which this film is based fan for 900 performances in the West End.

Sadly not a Twitter despite a very strong cast. Cecil Parker at his dithering best. Joan Greenwood with her voice which just oozes sex. Ian Carmichael in an unethical role.as a corporal and butler. Dennis Price,with his handlebar moustache. He should have been a big star but his alchoholism meant that would never happen. Finish Currie,into his eighties,being a typical Scottish character,but alas all in vain.

quite funny, well done and recommended

[guenzeld · 9/10 · 3 March 2009]

It is always a source of wonder to me that witty films find almost no audiences today, and the reason simply must be the ham-fisted, unsubtle, miles over-the-top Junior High School-level humor that is so much in vogue these days. Modern audiences must be so jaded by amateurisms that when something genuinely funny comes along their dulled senses simply can't get the jokes.

THE AMOROUS PRAWN is a case in point. Its humor is subtle and sophisticated and discerning audiences will appreciate the clever writing and directing. If your in the mood for a light, entertaining spoof with plenty of wit then you should have no trouble enjoying this energetic little farce. Don't be put off by some of the downright weird reviews of this little charmer that have thus far appeared on this site. See it and enjoy it.

A delightful farce!

[JohnHowardReid · 8/10 · 6 October 2017]

Directed by ANTHONY KIMMINS. Screenplay by Anthony Kimmins, Nicholas Phipps. Based on the stage play by Anthony Kimmins. A Miller-King Production for Covent Garden Films, distributed in the U.K. by BLC/British Lion, in Australia by B.E.F., in the U.S.A. by Medallion.

No New York opening. U.S. release: November 1963. U.K. release: 25 November 1962. Australian release through British Empire Films: 1 February 1963. 8,066 feet. 89 minutes.

Alternative U.S.A. titles: the Amorous Mr. Prawn, the Playgirl and the War Minister.

SYNOPSIS: Cash-strapped general's wife converts his home into a hotel for American tourists.

COMMENT: Although widely known as the director of the disastrous flop, "Bonnie Prince Charlie", director Anthony Kimmins made a remarkable recovery from that 1949 setback. His stage play, "The Amorous Prawn", enjoyed a most successful West End run.

So who would producer Leslie Gilliat contact to direct the movie version? You guessed right! the aforesaid Anthony Kimmins, of course!

Right from the very start, this offering comes across as a really funny and altogether delightful farce, which moves at a fast and hilarious clip thanks to the able talents of a splendid cast and the comic expertise of director/writer Anthony Kimmins.

OTHER VIEWS: A most enjoyable light comedy with Joan Greenwood playing the lady in her inimitable style and Cecil Parker in fine form as the general. As with most British comedies, a great deal of the fun depends upon the supporting cast's ability to lend distinction to farcical character roles — and all is fine here. Kimmins the director gives his script plenty of pace and excellent timing. — E.V.D.

A poorly written film that is relentlessly unfunny despite the presence of quite a few well-known British actors of the period

[bob the moo · 10 October 2004]

With General Fitzadam's retirement approaching, Lady Dodo Fitzadam has her heart set on them buying a lovely little cottage to spend their years together. Sadly the cottage is beyond their means and the General vetoes it just before he sets off to carry out orders on another placement. Leaving his wife in charge of the men must have made sense, but the General was not to know that Dodo would hit upon a money making idea that runs rather contrary to the military's rules. Ordering the soldiers to dress as butlers, Dodo sells the base as an idyllic holiday villa in remote Scotland – drawing paying American tourists. However, keeping the ruse quiet is more difficult than they suspected, not to mention the loud and fun-seeking American guests.

The title makes little sense and bares little relevance to the story but it is better than the cash in American title, which sought to increase its audience by claiming some relation to the infamous Profumo sex scandal of the period. With such a nonsensical title it was no surprise to find a rather simple and uninspiring comedy that is pretty bland and has no real appeal other than a collection of famous faces being present and some limited appeal to fans of the period. The plot is simplistic and merely a thin excuse for a lot of sudden costume changes and harmless flirting – can they keep the ruse hidden? Can they keep the flirting from becoming something more serious? Can I manage to keep watching long enough to find out? The answer to the final question is 'yes', but only just. Without any laughs to really speak of it was hard to find a reason to keep watching other than sheer bloody-mindedness, which unfortunately I have! The plot goes exactly where you'd expect it to but it does so without really ever being interesting or entertaining.

The cast don't have the material to work with and it is only really their recognisable faces that have value. Ian Carmichael is OK and does OK with a much different accent from normal. Greenwood is unconvincing and her lack of real fight in her marriage makes the plot a bit more sobering than funny.

Cecil Parker is as strong as he usually is but has limited time, as indeed does the instantly recognisable Dennis Price. Liz Fraser plays on her looks as ever, but she is good looking and has a great figure here – who can blame the film for taking the chance to get her down to her underwear, shame that her flirting and giggling actually isn't funny at all. The support cast all do their bit without really shinning more than once or twice, the only real surprise being a very young looking Derek Nimmo in a typically camp role.

Overall if someone can explain the title to me then I will not have totally wasted 90 minutes but as it stands I probably have done. The plot is pointless and the material gives the well-known cast nothing to really work with. The poor script and sub-par flirting all act to produce a laugh free event, which is something of a problem in a film that is selling itself as a comedy. Might appeal to fans of the actors but more than likely many viewers will have given up on this lame product before it has even reached the halfway point.