|Index||6 reviews in total|
I originally watched this movie because a friend suggested it to me. He
said it's the Citizen Kane of prawn movies. As a prawn enthusiast how
could I say no? I love prawn. prawn-kabobs, prawn creole, prawn gumbo.
Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. Pineapple prawn, lemon prawn,
coconut prawn, pepper prawn, prawn soup, prawn stew, prawn salad, prawn
and potatoes, prawn burger, prawn sandwich. You just can't go wrong.
So it started off well enough with a lovely animated sequence about prawns but it was all downhill from there. After that it's nothing but dry British "humor." I put it in quotes because it's not funny. Oh sorry, what I meant to say was humour. Too much god awful RAF banter. "Top hole. Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how's your father. Hairy blighter, dicky-birdied, feathered back on his Sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harper's and caught his can in the Bertie." How could anybody find this funny?
5/10, but only because of the brilliant opening credits.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|