You know how Umberto Eco intentionally makes the intros to his novels "unreadable", so as to weed out the "undesirables" and the savages among the readers? Well, it's kinda... not exactly like that here. Because the pay-off later isn't that great here, and besides, the movie's writers never intended to bore their audiences with this cartoonish introduction. They just didn't know better: it was the early 60s and comedy was still fairly primitive.
Does anyone watch old (British) comedies for laughs? Doubtful. If you want laughs you won't find them in old UK flicks, or only very few. It takes the movie an entire hour to get a chuckle or two (when the launch is about to go ahead), and it's hardly side-splittingly hilariously stuff either. Slightly amusing on occasion; that's the extent of it
These films are more interesting as "ancient" oddities, as historical artifacts almost. Except that in 100 years the word "almost" will no longer serve a purpose. In 100 years, people will consider such films as exotic as the Dodo bird.
The humour is badly outdated. In fact it was boring and old-fashioned already by the 80s, let alone now.
The premise is that of a typical "clever" political "satire", though in practice more like a kiddie version of one. The writers would have been better off trying to create humorous situations concerning the main characters than try so bloody hard to explain the intricacies of international diplomacy and the Space Race. Why? Because all of the diplomatic stuff can only interest adults - yet the humor is mostly geared toward kids. The discrepancy makes no sense, which is why I assume the film bombed.
Still, I could be wrong. Perhaps it succeeded. After all, the production values are fairly high, and perhaps the adults from the 60s didn't mind being served kiddie humor. In fact, I know they didn't. Most of them, at least.
Humor based on character situations would have made more sense. For example, the professor is such a politically-correct, morally perfect bore: he says and does nothing funny, is there just as a dull stereotype to help push the "scientific" part of the story forward. He is completely uninteresting. Why couldn't he be a bumbling fool? Maybe a skirt-chaser? Slightly devious? Not necessarily an unfunny clown, but at least an imperfect person, someone with vices, a human being that one can attach gags to. Certainly the "astronaut" and his love-interest could have had more interaction, resulting in at least a few (mildly) amusing situations.
Not that all the political/diplomatic stuff was useless. It was alright, and not as mediocre as I'd expected it to be. But it didn't make much sense anyway. The Americans' motive for pretending not to recognize the small country's scam hence handing them $1 million made no sense. (10-20 million in today's money, so not exactly pocket money as it's being portrayed here.)
But much more mistifyng is the role of the British intelligence in all this. Britain wasn't involved in the Space Race, so why did they care so much about why Americans handed out that paycheck? Only Russians and Americans should have dealt with this. Besides, if MI5 was this involved then there's no reason why the Duchy wasn't swarming with German, French, Chinese and Italian spies as well. But yeah, it's a UK film so they "had" to somehow weasel the English into the plot, as if that was the only way to guarantee success at the box office...
The Prime Minister's behaviour is pretty random, he's the most oafish character (played well by whatshisname, all things considering) yet this oafishness can't be an excuse for glaring logic problems. He shows interest in his son's career and future - yet he also gladly sends him on what he thought would be a suicide mission (to the Moon). Nor does it make sense that he is so devastatingly disappointed that the rocket actually works; the excuse given is that he didn't want to anger the Americans, but that makes very little sense because at the very end he is willing to engage in a physical altercation with its representatives when it comes to the question of ownership of the Moon.
Yes, it's only a silly 60s comedy, but one that tried to do political satire, not just broad farce, hence why it is legitimate to probe into its flawed logic.
Does anyone watch old (British) comedies for laughs? Doubtful. If you want laughs you won't find them in old UK flicks, or only very few. It takes the movie an entire hour to get a chuckle or two (when the launch is about to go ahead), and it's hardly side-splittingly hilariously stuff either. Slightly amusing on occasion; that's the extent of it
These films are more interesting as "ancient" oddities, as historical artifacts almost. Except that in 100 years the word "almost" will no longer serve a purpose. In 100 years, people will consider such films as exotic as the Dodo bird.
The humour is badly outdated. In fact it was boring and old-fashioned already by the 80s, let alone now.
The premise is that of a typical "clever" political "satire", though in practice more like a kiddie version of one. The writers would have been better off trying to create humorous situations concerning the main characters than try so bloody hard to explain the intricacies of international diplomacy and the Space Race. Why? Because all of the diplomatic stuff can only interest adults - yet the humor is mostly geared toward kids. The discrepancy makes no sense, which is why I assume the film bombed.
Still, I could be wrong. Perhaps it succeeded. After all, the production values are fairly high, and perhaps the adults from the 60s didn't mind being served kiddie humor. In fact, I know they didn't. Most of them, at least.
Humor based on character situations would have made more sense. For example, the professor is such a politically-correct, morally perfect bore: he says and does nothing funny, is there just as a dull stereotype to help push the "scientific" part of the story forward. He is completely uninteresting. Why couldn't he be a bumbling fool? Maybe a skirt-chaser? Slightly devious? Not necessarily an unfunny clown, but at least an imperfect person, someone with vices, a human being that one can attach gags to. Certainly the "astronaut" and his love-interest could have had more interaction, resulting in at least a few (mildly) amusing situations.
Not that all the political/diplomatic stuff was useless. It was alright, and not as mediocre as I'd expected it to be. But it didn't make much sense anyway. The Americans' motive for pretending not to recognize the small country's scam hence handing them $1 million made no sense. (10-20 million in today's money, so not exactly pocket money as it's being portrayed here.)
But much more mistifyng is the role of the British intelligence in all this. Britain wasn't involved in the Space Race, so why did they care so much about why Americans handed out that paycheck? Only Russians and Americans should have dealt with this. Besides, if MI5 was this involved then there's no reason why the Duchy wasn't swarming with German, French, Chinese and Italian spies as well. But yeah, it's a UK film so they "had" to somehow weasel the English into the plot, as if that was the only way to guarantee success at the box office...
The Prime Minister's behaviour is pretty random, he's the most oafish character (played well by whatshisname, all things considering) yet this oafishness can't be an excuse for glaring logic problems. He shows interest in his son's career and future - yet he also gladly sends him on what he thought would be a suicide mission (to the Moon). Nor does it make sense that he is so devastatingly disappointed that the rocket actually works; the excuse given is that he didn't want to anger the Americans, but that makes very little sense because at the very end he is willing to engage in a physical altercation with its representatives when it comes to the question of ownership of the Moon.
Yes, it's only a silly 60s comedy, but one that tried to do political satire, not just broad farce, hence why it is legitimate to probe into its flawed logic.