The Wrong Box (1966) User Reviews

Petal-soft hands are the mark of a great ornithologist

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 1 June 2009]

Funny and often laugh out loud hilarious story of two brothers (John Mills and Ralph Richardson), one of whom must outlive the other in order to win a Tontine started at their boys school and going to the final survivor of the class. What transpires is "The Wrong Box," a 1966 film directed by Bryan Forbes and also starring Michael Caine, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Wilfred Lawson, Nanette Newman (Mrs. Forbes) and Peter Sellers.

The first ten minutes or so of the movie is hilarious, as it shows the demise of the other students over the years. Regarding the surviving Finsbury brothers, one side of has Caine and his grandfather Mills, who is desperate to win, so he summons his brother to his "deathbed" in order to kill him, in one of the funniest scenes in the movie. On the other side, Cook and Moore are Richardson's nephews, who have devoted themselves to keeping their uncle alive. They needn't have bothered because he can't be killed anyway. He walks away from a train crash, but there's a mix-up, and he's believed dead. The nephews are desperate to cover this up until Mills dies. When they go to bury what they think is his body, Cook makes Moore do it rather than put his hands in the dirt, insisting "petal-soft hands are the mark of a great ornithologist."

Both Richardson, as the fact-spewing brother, and Mills, as the crazy old coot with murder in his heart, are excellent, as is the rest of the cast. Michael Caine is young and handsome here. Peter Sellers as a shady, cat-loving doctor is a riot. Wilfred Lawson, who plays Mills' butler, nearly steals the film as the elderly servant so old he practically has rigor mortis. One of the best moments is when Michael Caine sends him to the door telling him to go slowly - it already takes him ten minutes to get there, and Lawson starts to go to the door and mumbles to himself, "I'll slow it down." Too much. The pretty ingénue, Newman, had been married to director Forbes for ten years before the making of this film. She's still married to him.

Lots of fun, with a crazy finale befitting the film.

A comedy of deadly proportions.

[mark.waltz · 7/10 · 12 March 2013]

This delicious black comedy starts off with some delightfully funny views of bizarre deaths, all men who were part of an "tontine" (insurance bequest) where only the last surviving will receive any cash. Decades go by (as this was given to each of them when they were young boys) and now only two of the men, ironically brothers, survive. With one (John Mills) on his deathbed, the other (Ralph Richardson), a delightfully senile old codger, is out of town, chewing the ear off of anyone he can revel with his plethora of useless knowledge. Mill's son (Michael Caine) is a decent chap, a promising doctor, while Redgrave's wards, nephews Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, come up with a scheme to get their hands on the money when Richardson goes missing. Visiting his uncle (whom he hasn't seen in years), Caine falls in love with his cousin (Nanette Newman), while Cook and Moore try to pass off another corpse as their uncle, assuming that Mills has already croaked. This leads to a hysterical chase at the end, sort of a British early 1900's version of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World", with a bit of Monty Python and Benny Hill thrown in.

You'll delight at the ensemble cast here, which also includes Peter Sellers in one of his zanier roles as the quack doctor utilized to sign a death certificate for Redgrave, who gets the best lines in the film and is extremely funny. A delightful chase of horse-drawn funeral home carriages includes a ride through a band playing ragtime which has to change to somber funeral music every time these carriages go through the park they are playing in. There's also a Boston Strangler like serial killer and a senile butler, so those who like their comedy's eccentric will enjoy this one to the fullest.

The slings and arrows of outrageous insurance schemes

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 11 September 2018]

John Mills and Ralph Richardson play a pair of elderly brothers in Victorian England who are the last surviving members of a tontine, a form of investment/insurance policy in which a group of people pool funds which are disbursed to the last surviving member. Each of the two brothers wants to be the last surviving member, but more than that, it's their young family members who want their hands on the tontine money. They'll go to great lengths to get at it.

Michael Caine plays Mills' grandson, sutdying to be a doctor and trying to deal with Mills' increasingly parlous finances. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore play two of Richardson's great-nephews, with Nanette Newman being a cousin to them and Caine. She lives with Richardson (who lives next door to Mills), but falls in love with Caine.

There are some funny moments, but some misses too. Peter Sellers is irritating in his two scenes as a corrupt and dissolute doctor, while Wilfrid Lawson is even worse as Mills' butler. Richardson, on the other hand, is a hoot as the old man who engages in trivial small talk that drives everybody else up a wall without his having a clue as to the effect it has.

And the word "whip" appears 146 times in the Bible

[theowinthrop · 2 March 2005]

Robert Louis Stevenson wrote novels that studied character and its flaws: Long John Silver in "Treasure Island", Aleck Breck Stewart in "Kidnapped" and "David Balfour", James and Henry Durie in "The Master Of Ballentrae", Dr. Henry Jeckyll/Mr. Edward Hyde.... His best novels show the ambiguity of character. Yet with his interest in melodramatics he should have been a natural for writing mystery and detective stories, like his contemporaries Conan Doyle, Gilbert Chesterton, and Ernest Brahmah. They concentrated their gifts on character developments on their central story figures (Holmes and Watson, Father Brown, Max Carrados), but the basic plot development is what pulls the story along for all of them. Stevenson pulled the story plot to develop the characters instead.

Except once - "The Wrong Box". It is Stevenson's spoof on mystery and detective fiction. It was not his novel alone, but the first of three he wrote with his stepson Lloyd Osborne (to whom he told the story of "Treasure Island" before he wrote it down). Stevenson is telling the story of Masterman and Joseph Finsbury, the last two survivors of a special type of insurance form called a "tontine". It's an elaborate wager where a bunch of people put up a sum of money individually, and the last survivor gets the bulk of it. Masterman is home bound, and Joseph is a lively old bore who loves to talk and show off his preposterous knowledge of trivia (Ralph Richardson brings out the fact about the word "whip" when riding with a man holding a "whip"). Masterman (John Mills) lives with his grandson Michael (Michael Caine), and Joseph with his two greedy nephews (Morris and John - Peter Cook and Dudley Moore) and his niece Julia (Nanette Newman). Joseph does not really care about the tontine, but Masterman wants it - and is willing to speed the demise of Joseph to do it. Morris and John have to keep Joseph alive (which is not unlikely - he is in good health). Michael is not quite sure what is going on with his irascible grandfather, and Julia just knows she dislikes her two cousins Morris and John (but she really likes Michael). So the stage is set for the comedy. Along the way we meet other characters who are colorful: Dr. Pratt (Peter Sellers) - who at the drop of a hat will tell you about how he fell from medical grace to the backstreet he resides in; Peacock (Wilfred Lawson), Masterman's butler, who makes the average turtle look like it's turbocharged; the police Detective (Tony Hancock) - who can't put together a coherent idea if his life depended on it; and ...the Bournmouth Strangler (the story is from 1888, so we can guess who this character is based on).

It is a marvelous send-up on Victorian England, taking in the empire (notice the beginning when we see the demises of various members of the tontine), to the problems of railway traffic, talkative relatives, and body disposal in London in the 1880s. That the novel is not quite like the film does not matter (Michael is not a medical student but a clever barrister in the story, and John's relationship with Morris deteriorates in the story due to some money troubles), but this does not matter. It is a fun movie and well worth seeing.

Sixties Victoriana

[thecatsmotheruk · 7/10 · 9 March 2005]

Sixties take offs of the Victorian era are usually very entertaining. All of the clichés of repression and morbidity are always very over the top and they are here. A woman falls madly in love with a man when she sees his arms, the salvation army stick their nose into everything. It is perhaps more insightful into the sixties than anything! This is by no means a master piece, frankly with such a stellar cast it is rather disappointing. The script tries too hard to be funny and the gags come too thick and fast , especially at the end, for the viewer to be able to follow, certainly it is very unlike the slower, more leisurely pace of Stevenson's book.

However it is certainly worth watching. If nothing else it contains one of my favourite lines ever 'Listen to me all you eggs'!

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 7/10 · 28 September 2005]

An overly silly, often too chaotic but yet still enjoyable little comedy, it is not as much a showcase for the talents of its director as his previous films were, but it is still well done, with some swift bits of editing, excellent sets and costumes, and some good camera-work. The material itself has both some delightful and funny parts, and generally it is amusing, even though it is often one of two extremes of being either too rushed or too drawn out. Ralph Richardson received a nomination from the BAFTAs for his performance, and he is certainly the best of ensemble cast, although Wilfrid Lawson deserves a mention too. Some awkward title cards disturb the film, but otherwise it is entertaining enough viewing, and even if no masterpiece, this is still a fairly good film.

Misadventures and wry wit galore!

[lora64 · 10/10 · 23 December 2000]

I've recently bought this video not only to hear the music, which I do enjoy, but to be honest, it's the amusing shenanigans of the fortune seekers which I find so amusing. What will they think of next! Of course Michael Caine is his charming, adorable self, and his lady love, Julia, is captivating in her Victorian role of modesty personified, such a charming couple. I never thought John Mills could be so funny as he plays his role to the hilt, being very active for an ailing elderly family member. Peter Sellers' role as the absentminded Dr. Pratt would be hard to top as a performance. He certainly has a way with kittens and ink! It's the highlight of the movie, I'd say. The ending is hilarious and I'm still trying to figure it out as there's confusion galore. Altogether a very enjoyable film that you won't forget.

Very good but with a few problems here and there.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 2 November 2009]

THE WRONG BOX begins with a sort of prologue. A group of wealthy men have entered their young sons in a tontine--a lottery, of sorts, where the one who dies last receives the entry fee paid by everyone--plus, years and years of interest on this principal. I read a set of novels by Thomas Costain about such a contest but always wondered who would bother with such an arrangement? After all, the surviving member would almost certainly be too old and infirm to enjoy it.

The next portion of the film is the most humorous, as one by one you see the crazy ways that many in the tontine die. It's all done with a black sort of humor that I really enjoyed--and felt this was, by far, the best portion of the movie.

Eventually, there are only two members of the tontine still alive--two brothers who can't stand each other. One brother (Ralph Richardson) is the single most boring man on the planet. How he survived this long without someone killing him is beyond me, as the guy just talks and talks and talks--boring the daylights out of anyone unfortunate enough to come near him. His two nephews (Peter Cook and Dudley Moore) also can't stand him and begin scheming how they can get their hands on the money. There also is a niece and she's an oddball--part ultra-prude and part seething cauldron of passion. The other surviving brother (John Mills) seems to be in the worst health, but he, too, hates his brother and, if possible, he'd like to kill him--and he tries repeatedly. His grandson is played by Michael Caine--and he really, really likes his prudish (but hot) female cousin.

While I noticed some of the the reviewers absolutely adored this film (one declared it among the 10 best films ever made), my praise is much more muted. While I like dark comedies, this one seemed very uneven. Apart from showing all the funny deaths at the beginning, I really liked Richardson's character. He was so awful he was pretty funny. Likewise, I really liked the big part played by Peter Sellers as the demented doctor. The less than stellar portions were Cook and Moore (yes, I know they are a bit of an institution in the UK due to their TV work together) and the unnecessary and distracting intertitle cards. Also, some times the humor just seemed a bit flat here and there. Plus, in the end, there really wasn't any real resolution! Overall, a good comedy but not a great one in my estimation.

A perfect gem of British humor

[castiron-2 · 10/10 · 10 June 2002]

In my considered opinion, this is one of the best British comedies of all time (and I flatter myself that I am not usually given to hyperbole). To buttress this opinion, I could mention the fact that the movie is based on (and quite faithful to) one of the most hilarious stories ever penned in the English language (by R. L. Stevenson of "Treasure Island" fame); that the story in spite of its endless comical complications never once becomes too confusing (except of course to Tony Hancock's hapless inspector); and that the story is interpreted by some of the most memorable and talented actors of two generations.

The (then) old guard is worthily represented by Ralph Richardson as the deliciously exasperating Joseph Finsbury, John Mills as the cranky and cantankerous Masterman, and especially Wilfrid Lawson's unforgettable doddering yet stalwart butler (his fellow actor Michael Caine has stated that Lawson is his favorite actor--as well as the favorite actor of every other actor who knew him).

The (then) younger generation, however, does not pale by comparison. Peter Cook's Morris Finsbury sets down a delightfully unprincipled cad (one suspects that Masterman may have resembled him in his younger days), yet we can't quite stop rooting for him, because Michael Caine and Nanette Newman strike just the right sweet and innocent tone as Michael and Julia to make us surreptitiously feel that perhaps they deserve to be cheated out of their money. Moreover, the fact that the fate of the more deserving members of the younger generation is not exactly aligned with the more deserving member of the older generation reinforces the ambiguity--so we find ourselves rooting in turn for Joseph, Morris, and John, then again for Michael, Julia, and Masterman. In this respect, the eventual denouement (which I won't give away) is pleasantly and surprisingly satisfying.

Spare some kudos also for the excellent supporting cast, from Peter Sellers' vacuously venal Doctor Pratt and Dame Cicely Courtneidge's imperious Salvation Army major to such brief but perfect walk-ons as the unflappable engine crew ("We haven't heard the last of this") or poor Hackett's lachrymose widow. This is what British acting is all about.

If, in spite of all this circumstantial evidence, however, I still have not fully conveyed the essential laugh-out-loud, tears-in-your-eyes, still-uncontrollably-snickering-in-church-twelve-hours-later (warning: do not watch this movie if you plan to attend a funeral anytime soon), then I can only say one thing:

Go watch this movie. You'll love it.

somewhat overrated

[reve-2 · 6/10 · 2 September 2000]

For some reason, people have this tendency to praise British films to a point that is beyond what they deserve. This certainly is not a bad movie and it does have several interesting and genuinely funny scenes. But, it is not nearly as good as the reviews would indicate. There are several scenes that serve to slow down the story to the point where the movie almost stops dead in it's tracks. The romantic interludes are agonizing in their length and slowness of pace. Far too much is made of Peter Sellers role as the disgraced physician. Yes, he did a good job but, again, his scenes dragged on and were too long. The plot is a very good one and there is some excellent acting by all parties. However, at almost two hours, it is much too long. One half hour could easily have been cut from the length and the pace of the entire film would have been much better.

Incredible cast negated by weak, dull script

[grantss · 5/10 · 14 January 2023]

20 young boys join a tontine: their parents each deposited £1,000 into a trust and the last of them alive gets all the money. Several decades have passed and only two are left alive: Masterman and Joseph Finsbury - brothers. Masterman hatches a plan to lure Joseph to his home...and kill him. In this endeavour he is unwittingly aided by his slow, ineffectual grandson Michael. Joseph is watched over by his scheming nephews Morris and John Finsbury whose sole purpose is to ensure Joseph wins the tontine so they can get a share of the money.

This film looks very good on paper. This is due to the incredible cast: Michael Caine, John Mills, Ralph Richardson, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Peter Sellers, Tony Hancock, John Le Mesurier (of Dad's Army fame).

Yet, despite this great array of stars, especially comedy stars, it's quite dull and unfunny. The plot is pretty basic and doesn't work as a drama or a comedy. There's one or two good laughs but the humour is few and far between: it's understated to the point of non-existence. All those great comedic talents - Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Peter Sellers, Tony Hancock - are largely wasted.

Quite disappointing.

See it for Peacock

[pshore1 · 9/10 · 11 August 2005]

There are many reasons to enjoy this film. It is a catalogue of English comic and serious actors, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore not the least among them. But this show belongs to the bit players. Wilfrid Lawson as Peacock is superb. I hope he garnered enough attention from this role to cap off his career. Bit and character players are a special breed.

The film is vaguely psychedelic. The art nouveau lettering on title cards fits in with the Haight Ashbury tone of the times. The plot is solid and humorous throughout yet it depends on the basic slapstick for its conclusion.

Well-written, well-acted, well-directed, well-conceived. A treat.

Muted comic chaos...very British, and with several dryly engaging sequences

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 8 January 2011]

Suggested by Robert Louis Stevenson's and Lloyd Osbourne's story, this outrageous comedy involves a pair of estranged, elderly brothers in Victorian England--the last two survivors of a decades old lottery--who, at different points, are thought deceased by their relatives, two of whom will go to any lengths to retrieve the boodle. Director Bryan Forbes (who also produced) wouldn't be my pick to helm a crazy-quilt British farce involving comedic misunderstandings, a carriage race in funeral buggies, and a mad scramble for money in a cemetery! Forbes had never cut loose before (and hasn't done so since), and so his expected 'gentleman-like' pacing occasionally rears its head. Still this script, penned by Larry Gelbart and Burt Shevelove, opens with some high black comedy...and Forbes really seems to get into the general silliness of the situation. The all-star cast (including Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, and Peter Sellers in a guest role as a befuddled doctor) is encouraged to play it over-the-top, and there are laughs nearly all the way through. **1/2 from ****

forced humor

[mjneu59 · 4/10 · 17 January 2011]

A madcap cross-country chase for an inherited fortune by two elderly brothers and their many offspring ought to be funnier than this, especially with so many familiar names and faces along for the ride. Viewers with a weakness for the mugging style of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore might be entertained, but others may find themselves longing for more scenes with trivia freak Ralph Richardson, and a bigger part for Peter Sellers, seen all-too briefly as a dotty MD with a fondness for cats. Elsewhere the various routine plot complications and misunderstandings are (at best) fitfully amusing, but the presentation is rarely more than just plain silly, with coy title cards ("Disaster Ensues!") providing a labored chuckle along the way. The script was based on a Robert Louis Stevenson short story, which would explain the otherwise gratuitous Victorian setting and trappings.

About actors improvising

[elsig · 7 March 2001]

As one of the authors of the film, I'd like to say that neither of the Peters, Cook nor Sellers, did any ad libbing. As is usually the case with British actors, there was a great respect for, and reliance on, the written word.

It's zany, it's satirical, it's good clean fun

[Useful_Reviewer · 7/10 · 11 August 2011]

This is the kind of comedy that entertains with twists and turns in the plot. One crazy event leads to another, all caused by mix-ups, assumptions and misunderstandings. That said, it is well written and quite funny in a 1960's British way, with plenty of satire to go along with the zany happenings of the story. Michael Caine, Dudley Moore, and Peter Cook are all good, and Peter Sellers is fantastic in a small role. But ultimately the film comes down to a cleverly crafted plot that was derived from an old novel by Robert Louis Stevenson and Lloyd Osbourne.

The movie is clean enough to watch with your family, though the young kids will miss much of the humor, and some of the comedy comes from the fact that characters pretend to care about the deaths of older family members, when in fact they don't.

The Wrong Box

[henry8-3 · 7/10 · 25 July 2019]

2 aged brothers (Richardson and Mills) are the last 2 survivors of an old school tontine and the last one to survive will inherit a fortune. Their siblings - scheming Cook and Moore on one side and innocent Caine on the other all come together in a very British black comedy.

Really lovely witty and gentle paced comedy, with Caine hilarious in his attempts to woo Newman and Peter Cook (who never could act) fun as the nasty scheming Morris.

Best bits though are from Lawson as the decrepit butler, Richardson, boring everyone rigid with his knowledge of trivia and Peter Graves in a small role as the commanding Baron.

Timeless English comedy, superbly done.

[drdcw · 10/10 · 4 August 2001]

Little known in the United States, THE WRONG BOX is an absolute must-see for serious students of comedy. The plot revolves around a tontine, a lottery established by the well-heeled fathers of a class of English schoolboys, the proceeds to be awarded after many years to the last surviving member of the class. The story picks up at the point where only two of the classmates are still alive: the brothers Masterman and Joseph Finsbury, who rather detest one another. The plot is full of Finsburys, all of whom want one or the other to die first so they can get a piece of the loot.

Bryan Forbes's direction is first rate, visually exquisite, and even though the convoluted plot is a bit slow to get started, nicely paced. Forbes has a notable cast of experienced actors, and he gives them free reign to perform comedy as only the British can do. The climax chase comes to a head at exactly the right time and is hilarious, the more so because it is marvelously unforced. The actors involved give the impression they're delighted to be in the film, as they should be.

THE WRONG BOX is one of Michael Caine's earlier films and he performs creditably, and Peter Sellers shines in an excellent bit part. Nevertheless, my hat goes off to three other actors who give the performance of their careers: Ralph Richardson, as the quintessential pedant Joseph Finsbury, the world's most boring narcissist; Peter Cook, as Joseph's incessantly scheming nephew who wants to see his uncle die a few seconds after Masterman croaks; and most especially, Wilfrid Lawson as the wondrously torpid Peacock, Masterman's dignified but disheveled butler whose peculiar grunts and malapropisms remain fresh with every viewing of the film. I would put Lawson's performance on a par with Humphrey Bogart's in THE CAINE MUTINY or Fred MacMurray's in DOUBLE INDEMNITY -- it is truly that good.

THE WRONG BOX ranks on a par with THE LIFE OF BRIAN as one of the finest British comedies ever. Enjoy it!

THE WRONG BOX (Bryan Forbes, 1966) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 21 December 2008]

A typical all-star extravaganza of the 1960s (which I had also first caught on Italian TV) based on a novel by Robert Louis Stevenson, this black comedy perhaps aspires to be a zany updating of KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS (1949) as it revolves around the assorted mishaps of various people on the way to gaining the proceeds of a lottery. However, being patchy overall – insufficiently witty and often resorting to heavy-handed comedy which outstays its welcome – it fails to achieve that film's level of artistic merit (culminating in a fracas at a graveyard, then, it also brings to mind the contemporaneous THE LOVED ONE [1965]); however, we do begin promisingly enough with a number of nice skits wherein the long line of candidates to the fortune is severely diminished (there's even a gag involving an accident-prone Queen Victoria!).

As for the remarkable cast, it's led by Ralph Richardson (amusingly bugging everybody with his pomposity – a coachman whispers to himself "God save us!" at Richardson's hope that they meet again) and John Mills (atypically involved in pratfalls, especially when attempting to do in brother Richardson: the two live next door to each other and, yet, haven't spoken in 40 years!) as the last survivors of the deadly tontine. Also on hand are Michael Caine (as Mills' grandson) who shares a rather boring, and unnecessarily flashily-presented, romance with Nanette Newman (Richardson's ward and director Forbes' real-life wife), Peter Cook and Dudley Moore (making for a characteristically unscrupulous albeit bumbling duo – incidentally, I should get to their maligned spoof rendition of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES [1978] presently), Wilfrid Lawson (who's fun as Mills' doddering butler) and Thorley Walters (the lawyer charged with handing over the money to the eventual winner). Besides, we also get guest spots by Peter Sellers and Tony Hancock in decidedly ill-advised character turns as eccentric doctor and befuddled Police Inspector respectively. The evocative period detail (courtesy of cinematographer Gerry Turpin and production designer Ray Simm) and John Barry's lovely score are flawless, however.

For the record, the Spanish(!) DVD edition I acquired is hardly optimal – being not only regrettably panned-and-scanned but even going out-of-synch during the climax…yet it will have to suffice for the moment.

Little Gem

[vox-sane · 10/10 · 14 July 2004]

The quiet little black comedy "The Wrong Box" has a superb cast. Veteran British stage/cinema actors (Ralph Richardson, John Mills, Wilfred Lawson) play with rising stars (Michael Caine, just off "Alfie", and Peter Cook & Dudley Moore from the groundbreaking "Beyond the Fringe" revue). Established comic actors (Peter Sellers, Tony Hancock) give performances that carefully-polished little gems. Even the tiniest "blink and you'll miss 'em" roles are loaded with familiar character actors (Cicely Courtneidge, John Le Mesurier, Thorley Walters &c) rubbing elbows with rising talents (Jeremy Lloyd, James Villiers, Leonard Rossiter, Graham Stark) making the movie a veritable field day for spotters of British humor. The performances in the major roles are all solid. Some of the smaller parts have variable performances: Thorley Walters is delightful, Courtneidge, too overbearing). All the actors seem to realize that they must take this sort of comedy seriously -- mugging kills this sort of humor. The leads (Richardson, Mills, Cook, Moore, Caine, Lawson) are all suitably earnest. Only Nanette Newman (the director's wife) doesn't seem quite up to her part, being a better actress in modern dress; but she's quite pretty enough and she's good enough not to be utterly lost even in this ensemble of extremely talented actors.

The humor is quiet, with a Victorian hush over the proceedings, lending a (perhaps tongue in cheek) funereal respect to its theme of death with laughter. The gentle pace picks up near the end with a chase with hearses and beer wagons, and a climax that gathers all the principles in a cemetery in a satisfying conclusion.

The witty script is filled with little bits that might not register at first (such as the pulse bit, or "Can you speak a little lower" and the peculiar words "unnecessarily mutilated"). Some of the sight gags go askew, but enough of them work to make them worth while. It's not a movie for every taste. Anglophiles and those who appreciate an easy-going humor may find it work a peek. Anyone who loves Peter Sellers has to see his Pratt.

Underrated and pretty funny

[Jeremy_Urquhart · 7/10 · 16 May 2023]

This got off to an amazing start, and faltered in a few areas as it went along. It felt like Kind Hearts and Coronets or 1955's The Ladykillers for a bit, but I don't think it was overall as good as those. However, I did end up liking it quite a lot. There were enough moments that genuinely caught me off-guard that proved pretty funny, but I like a good farcical storyline, and I tend to like black comedy, and that's pretty much what this is. Being fond of British slapstick also helps - there's a ton of really broad comedy in here, but mixing that with posh accents and people trying to behave oh-so-proper equals funny. I liked the jokey use of intertitles, too.

In trying to explain why this is a good comedy, I've probably made it sound kind of boring. Something something talking about comedy is like swimming about horror, or whatever the saying is.

Anyway, this is worth watching, whether you're a Michael Caine completionist or not (but watching most of his movies seems like a far from bad idea? I feel like he's been in a ton more good films than bad).

Not particularly funny, but watch it for the cast anyway

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 22 March 2020]

THE WRONG BOX is one of those all-star ensemble comedies that were so popular in the 1960s. Expect a great and sprawling number of cast members, each of them competing to be funnier and to get more screen time than the rest, amid a muddled legal-based plot involving a sprawling family and a kind of lottery which will dole out a huge reward to the last surviving member (or his offspring). It's a film where established players like John Mills and Ralph Richardson appear alongside the new stars of the decade like Michael Caine and Nanette Newman; my favourite role is Peter Sellers as the absent-minded doctor. It's not particularly funny, but the cast alone makes it worth a watch.

Ticks all the right boxes................

[ianlouisiana · 9/10 · 22 April 2008]

Wilfrid Lawson was an heroic drinker.Once when starring as the Duke of Buckingham with fellow boozehound Robert Newton in a production of" Richard the third" he stumbled all over the stage,finally tripping over his sword.As he struggled upright a voice from the audience assailed him "You're p*ssed!".He staggered to the footlights and screwed up his eyes,"if you think I'm p*ssed you should see the Duke of Clarence",he shouted,grinning manically.Now he was either almost permanently p*ssed during the making of "The wrong box",or he was the greatest actor I have ever seen.Mr Bryan Forbes assembled some lovely actors of both generations for his movie of greed and deceit amongst the Victorian upper middle classes.I can feel affinity with the Finsburys because my grandmother was the loser in a Tontine and had she not rather inconsiderately fallen under the wheels of a London Omnibus I might have been heir to a fortune.On the other hand I might have ended up the victim of a fiendish plot by disgruntled relatives................. Unfancied at the time of its release this movie has gained enormous piquancy as time has taken its inevitable toll of the stellar cast. Mr Forbes shows his customary affection for the British character with all its eccentricities and pulls off the difficult trick of directing with a firm hand whilst displaying a light touch.Mrs Forbes is a particular beneficiary here,glowingly sweet and innocent. Mr Lawson is the undoubted star of the show,but Mr Sellers and Mr Walters acquit themselves particularly well in support.Miss Courtneidge who graced Mr Forbes' earlier "The L - shaped room" is splendid as the Salvation Army lady. The whole movie glows in that particular "Geneveive" light and colour that epitomises a whole culture of British pictures when the making of them was very much a cottage industry. I will mention Mr Hancock principally because he is so poorly represented on film that any opportunity to see world - weary but defiant persona must be seized with alacrity. There is a self - effacing Englishness about the acting that will appeal to those who feel that "Deuce Bigelow" and "Dodgeball" are just a trifle de trop.

Farce is full of effort.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 28 November 2007]

Its a story of two older cousins -- John Mills and Ralph Richardson -- the surviving one of which pair will inherit a fortune, and the fortune will of course be passed on to his younger relatives. The two cousins haven't spoken in forty years. One of them, Mills, is an angry, sickly fellow. Richardson is an old bore. All of them, and all of their greedy young relatives, are proper Victorian types. There is a mix-up in which both men are mistakenly thought to be dead. Wrong boxes are shipped around from site to site. Two of the younger relatives (Peter Cook and Dudley Moore) connive to have Mills declared dead so that their living uncle can inherit the ten thousand pounds. It gets kind of complicated and winds up in a rattling chase of horse-drawn hearses and other vehicles, some containing dead bodies in pianos, others containing boxes full of money.

I don't know why this doesn't quite clear the bar but it's simply not as funny as it ought to be. It was released in 1966. "Tom Jones", a wildly successful period picture, was released two years earlier, and I suppose this was an attempt to follow up. But "Tom Jones" was a raucous story set in Georgian England of 1745. People fell into mud. They ate like animals before they copulated. And that is definitely NOT Victorian England, and you can't develop a successful parody in the same way. How can you exaggerate a proper and prim Victorian man or woman? Make him or her still MORE prim? You wind up with an ice sculpture. The humor is so understated that it isn't very amusing. (A woman glimpses a man's bare arm and fairly swoons. Twice.) Maybe, given the script, they should have gone the way not of "Tom Jones" but of some of the earlier Ealing comedies. Instead of zeroing in on mugging and flat jokes, had the story been played straight and ironic, it might have worked. As it is, the fulsome musical score, lush color photography, and row upon row of fine actors, are more of a distraction than a virtue.

The jokes are milked for what they are worth, and they're not all bad. Two examples.

Michael Caine is invited to the house of his inamorata and finds the house full of eggs of all sizes and colors. Splashy title card: "AT LAST! ALONE IN A HOUSE FULL OF EGGS!") Nanette Newman: "My uncle collects eggs." Caine (goggling): "Very commendable." Newman: "I find them obscene." When Caine leaves, Newman says politely and a little breathlessly that it was nice meeting him. Caine: "Not at all. I hope to see much more of you." Newman gasps at his boldness.

Well, here's another I found amusing. A young man, the grandson of an obscenely wealthy industrial baron, is holding his grandfather's wheelchair at the top of a hill. "When I die," croaks the old fellow, with an arthritic flourish, "all this will be yours" -- and he indicates the ugliest, smokiest, smoggiest, brickiest, most smokestack sprouting landscapre one has ever seen. "Yes, grandfather," smiles the young man. He releases the wheelchair that trundles down the hill to its offscreen fate.

Two cast members, however, make memorable every scene they're in. Wilfred Lawson as the aging butler, trembling and shuffling, whose every utterance is a strangled attempt at speech. (He was good in "Tom Jones," too.) And, especially, Peter Sellers as a drunken and discombobulated, disreputable doctor who performs abortions and helps poison people who have become nuisances. (He MUST have improvised some of his business.) He tries to sign a phony death certificate under the coaching of Peter Cook and finally manages to print out his name in ugly, scraggling letters. W. Pratt MD. Then he peruses it with half-stunned satisfaction and reads it aloud -- "W. Prattmd." I mean, he incorporates the "MD" into his last name. No other single gag matches that one.

I don't intend saying that this is a boring film. A viewer doesn't get a sense of failure at every turn, only that so many of the jokes aren't as funny as the script tries to make them, and some are plain silly. It's very genteel, and not at all irritating. Goes down like a draught of the black balm. You might enjoy it, so many other people have.

On a third viewing, though some of the gags remain without impact, others seem more amusing. Maybe the milieu of my brain cells has changed with age or some chemical manipulation. In any case, I've bumped my rating up a notch.

From the Sublime to the Ridiculous

[JamesHitchcock · 5/10 · 30 January 2024]

Around the year 1830, a group of families agree to organise an investment on behalf of their young sons. £1,000 is invested for each boy taking part, making a total of £20,000. The capital and all accrued interest will be paid out to the last surviving member of the group of boys. (The scheme is described as a "tontine", but under a true tontine interest is not capitalised in this way but paid out regularly to all surviving members of the scheme. It is uncertain whether investments of the type depicted here have ever existed in realise).

Fast forward to the late Victorian era. Eighteen members of the tontine have died; the only survivors are two elderly brothers, Masterman and Joseph Finsbury. They detest one another and have not spoken in may years, although they live next door to each other. They have very different personalities. Masterman is greedy and avaricious, obsessed with winning the tontine to such an extent that he makes several unsuccessful attempts to kill his brother. Joseph is an eccentric scholar, with little interest in money and unconcerned with the tontine.

The plot revolves around a complicated scheme by Joseph's nephews Morris and John to obtain the tontine money by fraud. Wrongly believing Joseph to have died in a train crash- in fact he escaped unharmed- and that Masterman is dying, they try to hush up news of Joseph's supposed "death" until Masterman has died. The plot then gets very complicated, involving mistaken identities and boxes being delivered to the wrong address. (Hence the title). Another important element is the romance between Masterman's grandson Michael and Joseph's granddaughter Julia. To avoid twentieth-century sensibilities about cousin marriages, Michael and Julia are both adopted and therefore not related by blood, although I doubt if the Victorians would have worried much about a marriage between second cousins.

The cast includes a number of leading lights of the British acting profession and comedy scene, including John Mills, Ralph Richardson, Michael Caine, Peter Sellers, Tony Hancock, and Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. Unfortunately, whereas a talented cast may be a necessary condition for a good film, it is never a sufficient one, and "The Wrong Box" is one of a long list of movies that don't really work despite a cast-list stuffed with big names. It must be said that few of the actors here are at their best.

No actor, however talented they may be, can guarantee that every film they make will be a good one, but Caine, more than most actors, seems to have an infuriating ability to go from the sublime to the ridiculous and back again. "The Wrong Box" was his first film after his great performance in one of his biggest hits, "Alfie", but here he just seems to be strolling though the picture without much effort. I must say that I always preferred Cook and Moore as comedians rather than as comic actors, and the attempt to recreate their "Pete'n'Dud" personas by casting them here as Morris and John never really works. (They were to be better the following year in "Bedazzled"). Probably the best here are Sellers as an eccentric doctor (although his is only a small role) and Richardson as the equally eccentric Joseph, the sort of intellectual who possesses a vast store of useless knowledge on the most arcane subjects and who will happily share it with anyone who will listen, or even with those who will not.

The storyline is over-complex and at times difficult to follow. The film has elements of both farce and black comedy, but lacks the manic logic of a good farce and, despite its subject-matter, is never really dark enough to qualify as a true black comedy. Given that his previous film had been the excellent "King Rat", director Bryan Forbes, like his leading man Caine, can be said to have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous in one step. 5/10.