IMDb user comments for
Churchill: The Hollywood Years (2004) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

37 comments in total

---

24 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
Funny, brilliant, bold & uneven spoof of British insecurities and Hollywood excesses, 3 December 2004

Author: bopdog from Cardiff, Wales

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.

---

14 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
"God, I wish I was an American.", 24 March 2005
Author: Graham Deans Williamson (gdwilliamson@deathsdoor.co.uk) from Middlesbrough, England

Is it time for a Comic Strip revival? I think so. Peter Richardson's new film is essentially an update of the CS's classic 'The Strike' (1986), but without that film's slightly off-centre approach to satirising Hollywood. Whereas 'The Strike' misguidedly tried to attack Hollywood vulgarity by caricaturing Al Pacino and Meryl Streep – probably the two least dumbed-down, vulgar actors in Hollywood today – the new film goes all the way by having Winston Churchill portrayed as a young, handsome American GI, patterned after Bruce Willis by a gleeful Christian Slater. His performance is astoundingly game, the work of a man who knows full well that all his bridges have been burnt. Neve Campbell tries to keep up as a similarly bastardised Queen Elizabeth, but can't quite manage it.

The film's main selling point is its who's-who of British comedy, and here's where it gets a bit hit and miss. Vic Reeves, Bob Mortimer and James Dreyfus play camp caricatures who feel a bit out of place in a parody of testosterone-fuelled action movies, and I am sorry to say that those waiting for a return to form for Rik Mayall may have to wait a little longer. On the plus side, Miranda Richardson's randy Eva Braun is a joy, there are splendidly memorable cameos for younger talent like Mackenzie Crook, Steve Pemberton and Mark Heap, and Harry Enfield's King George is absolutely brilliant – the kind of hilariously caustic live-action satirical cartoon that I'd nearly given up hope of him managing any more.

You could do a lot worse than see this, not least because, with its jokes about 'U-571' (2000) and 'Pearl Harbor' (2001), not to mention the impossibility of navigating the London transport system and the inanity of Royal public engagements, it represents a rare British comedy for a British market, rather than one with an increasingly desperate eye on the American market.

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
With all respect, you seem to have missed the point...., 30 June 2005

Author: Kenny_Mackay21 from United Kingdom

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.

---

14 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Enjoyable Spoof, 4 December 2004

Author: HairyMart1 from Sheffield, UK

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 !

---

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Amusing enough, but inconsistent, 8 August 2005

Author: Michael Mackenzie (whiggles@ntlworld.com) from Glasgow, Scotland

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

---

11 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Criminal waste of comic talent, 6 June 2005

Author: Tony Pendrey from Sunny Southend, UK

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.

---

13 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Should have been good, but isn't, 6 April 2005

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England

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.

---

9 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Cast, Great Humour, Great Movie, 5 December 2004

Author: neildevany from North West, England

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!

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
'Carry On' is dead.......long live Pete Richardson, 29 May 2007

Author: lazyaceuk (lazyaceuk@yahoo.co.uk) from Plymouth, Devon, England

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.

---

7 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Who put blood or sweat into this thing?, 25 December 2005
Author: funkfan-1 from United States

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history