The Chastity Belt

This film does not have as funny a theme song, but most of the jokes are funnier. Howerd plays Lurkalot, a serf, who bears a striking likeness to Richard the Lionheart, and goes off to fight in the crusades. Eartha Kitt puts in a performance as Scheherazade, and there is a surprise about the reality of the Crusades.

This follow up to the filmed version of UP POMPEII sees the Frankie Howerd character (now named 'Lurkalot') transplanted to the medieval era, where he contends with chastity belts, scheming villains, the Crusades and a certain band of forest-dwelling Merry Men.

In other words, it's an excuse for more of the same, with Howerd making regular asides to the viewer and the comedy resembling a particularly smutty and diabolical entry in the CARRY ON series. The first thing that's noticeable is the paucity of the budget, which makes the film look even cheaper than the average episode of DOCTOR WHO and about on the same level as a school play.

The script is also shambolic, little more than a linked string of tired sketches that usually involve half-dressed women used as window dressing. Saying that, the cast is far better than you'd imagine, perhaps giving an inkling of the state of the British film industry during this era. Graham Crowden is delightful as the permanently sozzled Sir Coward de Custard, series regulars Lance Percival and Bill Fraser give it their best, and there are bit parts for Dave Prowse, Christopher Timothy, Frank Thornton, Sam Kydd and Roy Hudd. Watch out for a cameoing Eartha Kitt (on a sabbatical from Hollywood) and scene-stealing Hugh Paddick as the campest Robin Hood you ever will see.

The Queen of England gives birth to twins. In order to protect the blood line one is kept and the other hidden in a pig style and is raised to think it's mother is the pig. Lurkalot is the one raised by pigs who doesn't know his past. He makes a good living as a servant, selling chastity belts on the side. When his master's castle is lost to Sir Braggart de Bombast, Lurkalot must fight to protect his daughter, eventually travelling to the missions to bring back his master. On the mission he uncovers that his twin is Richard the Lionheart and he is of Royal stock and must bring them both back.

The story to this doesn't really matter as it is simply an excuse to hang a pile of crude jokes on. In fact most of the film seems to keep adding things just to keep the film going. The jokes are ok - but it relies on innuendo and crudity too much, whole scenes are devoted to jokes involving the Kama Sutra! I know that this is a film of it's time but there are far too many jokes that smack of not just sexism but also racist overtones.

Howerd is good here - he seems to enjoy the material a lot more than in the terrible Up the Front. True most of the jokes aren't funny but he does seem at ease with the material - but it's never anywhere near his best work. The rest of the cast is made up from the basement of British TV and have the horrible task of acting out this story as straightmen. The only other good role in the film is a cameo by a young Eartha Kitt - she is really sexy here and really beautiful, unfortunately she is only the catalyst for more dirty jokes.

Overall this is a disappointment - it's not as bad as some of his other films but it's a country mile from Howerd at his best. Quite good but not Howerd's best and it's humour has dated really badly.

Those who remember fondly Frankie Howerd's take on Roman society in 'Up Pompeii' will probably enjoy this bizarre comedy featuring, we presume, Lurkio's descendant, the serf Lurkalot (who does).

The plot is a little contrived, it must be said, and involves twin princes, separated at birth, finding themselves at opposite ends of the social spectrum: one a king, the other a peasant. There's something about the Holy Land, the Crusades and the key to the titular chastity belt - but really the plot is only an excuse for a relentless barrage of gags.

It could be said fairly that much of the content and certainly many of the jokes would probably not be considered appropriate if this film were being made today. But of course, it is important to remember that it is not being made today - it was made quite a long time ago, and attitudes were rather different then. As the title should suggest, much of the subject matter revolves around sex, although it is generally handled fairly innocently in comparison to modern movies, and those able to sit through any of the 'Carry On' films without taking offence should have no trouble with this. For example, the entertainingly camp portrayal of a certain green-clad, forest-dwelling folk hero is positively tame compared to many of the stereotypes and caricatures regularly presented on modern British TV.

In short, those who are able to endure such terrible political incorrectness will find Howerd in fine form, with a supporting cast all hamming it up good and proper in what is essentially a pantomime on film. Definitely worth a look, if you think you dare risk letting yourself laugh at it...

This film is a vehicle for the comedic talents of Frankie Howerd, and if you like his style of humour, the plot is irrelevant. This is a curiously popular movie (it's almost always available on VHS or DVD) considering that there was no TV series to go with it. It was really an extension of Up Pompeii (many of the same people were involved), and feels like it (Lurcio Lurkalot). Frankie's less well-known "Up the Front" (set in WW1) is hardly ever shown or on tape to buy, and the TV show "Whoops, Bagdad" is all but forgotten (possibly with good reason).

Some of the jokes require a knowledge of the state of Britain in the early 1970s, and even if it isn't politically correct by modern standards, most of the audience will be laughing out of nostalgia rather than the freshness of the material, IMHO. When Howerd turns to camera and says "oh, you know this one, don't you", you know that they are going to do the classic open the door in front of the battering ram joke anyway, even though we're all expecting it by then. Many comedians couldn't have carried it off, but that was the age of "camp" comedy. Today, audiences aren't into "camp", which is why so many younger reviewers on this site fail to understand why these films were meant to be funny. (That's why the movie of "The Avengers" was such a horrible failure.)

It is very much a product of its period, but still worth watching today - if you know how to appreciate it.