Carry On Up the Jungle (1970)

 "Game?"

"Any time, if you are."

This is... well, there are some good one liners, the cast is good as ever (although Kenneth Williams is glaringly absent)... but, well, it's hardly the best of the series.

Why? Well, there are the moments that make one wince- Bernard Bresslaw in blackface, the jokes about the "natives"- but this is a Carry On film from 1970 set in deepest Africa: such things are priced in.

Then there's the obvious cheapness. This is set in Africa yet clearly shot on a set in Hertfordshire, so much so that it feels almost claustrophobic at times. There are various lions, elephants and giraffes... all of them very obviously stock footage. If all of this were made into a joke, it would work... but breaking the fourth wall is not the Carry On style. Also, Terry Scott as Tarzan is... a courageous bit of casting, to put it mildly.

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh here? After all, the Carry Ons are coming off a run of very strong films, but might that be the problem? Is Carry On Up the Khyber going to prove impossible to top? I suppose the script and performances are as good as ever here, and it's certainly good to have Frankie Howerd again after all this time. But this film just feels... well, cheap.

Carry On Again Doctor (1969)

 "Sir, I do not object to jiggery. But I do take exception to pokery.

It's the end of the '60s. And, worryingly, the Carry On series gives us a direct sequel to a recent hit in a way which might suggest they're running out of ideas. And, well... it's a bit of a curate's egg.

Yes, the ending, with the very '60s attitude to trans issues, is of its time, and couldn't be done today. Yet there's also an innocence to it, no suggestion of overt bigotry or cruelly cynical culture war nonsense. And the whole thing, particularly towards the end, is a very well constructed farce. And a well constructed farce is not an easy thing to write.

This is also a film crammed with excellent jokes, and most of the core Carry On cast at the top of their game. Kenneth Williams, Joan Sims and Hattie Jacques excel particularly, and Jim Dale is always a damn fine lead.

And yet... all that stuff in the overseas medical mission falls flat, with cheap looking sets and one note jokes. Worse, Sid James is wasted in a relatively small and poorly thought through role. There's such a contrast between these rather poor scenes and the rest of the film, in an actual medical setting.

And this is frustrating, because the rest of the film is as good as anything the Carry On crew have ever done, with script and cast both in sparkling form. When this film is good, it's very, very good.

Carry On Camping (1969)

 "Do you know, she's been showing me how to stick the pole up!"

It's back to the contemporary world of 1969 after all of the recent historical action, and another one of the best Carry Ons here- much though the setting really does give us a proper little time capsule anda reminder of how different we were as a country backin 1969.

It can't be denied, though- the humour is great here. The gag with Mr Fiddler and the sign at the entrance to the campis simply inspired. And all the regulars are in fine form here, with the addition of the wonderful Betty Marsden, who is hilarious (as a character called Harriet Potter!) and has superb comic chemistry with Terry Scott. The dynamic from Carry On Doctor between Kenneth Williams and Hattie Jacques is revived here... even revealing that this is the exact same Matron, in a nice little breaking of the fourth wall.

But my God... it was such a different time. Wearing a suit to the cinema. The older generation still insisting on no sex before marriage despite the fact that, now that it's the '60s and the pill exists, this shows a rather irresponsible and cavalier attitude to getting married. City gents with bowler hats. Hippies!

Most of all, though, the blokes' perving attitude to sex now... aspecially the eponymous Sid and Bernie, both clearly midde aged, lusting after presumably teenage pupils of a finishing school, which is rather icky, to say the least. Then there's Peter, the hen pecked husband, who discovers at the end that the answer to his problems is to give Harriet a damn good seeing to, after which he seems to be in charge. Yep. It was a very different time.

No denying it, though- this film is very, very funny.

Carry On Up the Khyber (1968)

 "For the last time, stop calling it a dangler!"

Sometimes conventional opinion is conventional for a reason, and I strongly suspect that's the case here. This is widely regarded as the best Carry On film. I've seen it a number of times during my youth, and always casually thought of it as the best. Having seen it again, now, as part of my slow journey through the Carry On films in order, that opinion is very much confirmed. Carry On Up the Khyber is absolutely superb, easily the best so far. Is this peak Carry On, then? Is it all downhill from here?

I should mention, of course, that there are things in this film- the brownface, the Indian and Afghan stereotypes- that, shall we say, have not aged well, and that there are certainly moments that make the viewer wince in 2025. The world of fifty-seven years ago now looks startlingly alien to our own... although, compared to MAGA morons, they seem positively progressive.

Those issues acknowledged, then, what makes this film so good? Well, firstly, the script is superb. The central conceit- that the security of British rule of the North-West frontier depends on the continued belief that the Third Foot and Mouth wear nothing beneath their kilts is inspired. The scene, towards the end, as Sir Sidney and the other senior British wallahs calmly eat dinner as the residency is attacked, is rightly acknowledged as perhaps the finest Carry On scene ever. But it's more than that. There's a lot of innuendo, and it's so witty. But the film is full of brilliant jokes, such as when the Khazi of Kalabar expresses annoyance at the beating of a gong- "Rank stupidity", indeed.

We also have the full core cast on top form here. Sid James and Kenneth Williams impress, of course. But Charles Hawtrey, too- having seemed to be sidelined in recent films, he's back, on top form, in a prominent role. Joan Sims and Bernard Bresslaw also stand out. But guest stars Roy Castle and Terry Scott are also superb.

I hope I'll see a better Carry On film as my marathon continues... but perhaps I should just hope to get as close as possible.

Carry On Doctor (1967)

 "Matron doesn't approve of banging in the ward..."

Agh. I hadn't seen this film for decades, but then last night I watched it... and suddenly it felt very familiar indeed. I suspect I've seen this Carry On more times than any other, albeit early in my life. And that probably shouldn't be surprising- it's one of the most highly regarded. But I probably enjoyed the film less than I should have done because of the memories flooding back as I watched it.

It's strange seeing this while watching all the films in order. After several films set in historical times and other places, here we are again in a contemporary British hospital, in a 1967 of the middle aged, rather different to the Summer of Love that was happening for a few rich young people. This is a time of strict matrons, the trope of the nagging wife, innuendo, "sex maniacs" and cold baths.

Indeed, this feels much like the earlier films in the series, including the style of the opening titles, which allude to Carry On Nurse. Yet we're much firmly into the more innuendo-based humour, with Barbara Windsor's, er, assets playing a large role.

The farcical, very silly plot, as well as some nicely witty lines, make this one of the better Carry Ons. I loved the Invisible Man gag. Frankie Howerd, in his Carry On debut, is excellent in a very prominent role, although the fact that the usual cast is very much present and correct means that some of the regulars are stretched quite thin. Charles Hawtrey, yet again, has a surprisingly small role- off-screen problems?

Excellent film. Although it has me wondering- at what point did we stop referring to "the National Health" and start calling it the NHS, colloquially?

Don't Lose Your Head (1967)

 "That's all very well, but that would never have happened under a Royalist government."

We're entering a stretch that represents the absolute pinnacle of Carry On. This, and the next couple of films or so, are the peak. It is, or so we're led to believe, all downhill, starting very soon. I'll keep an open mind, naturally, but let''s enjoy this purple patch while it lasts. And let's appreciate the irony that two of the films in this period, starting with this one, strictly speaking didn't have the "Carry On" prefix.

This film is bloody good, though. I've seenit many times over the years, but not for a while. And it didn't disappoint either this time or before. It's a simple premise: just riff off The Scarlet Pimpernel and pit Sid James' Sir Rodney Ffing ("Effing, with two f's") against Kenneth Williams as the inevitably named citizen camembert. Add in Charles Hawtrey as the Dic de Pomme Frities, and you have a filmthat cannot fail.

Add in a couple of contemporary references "It's the one thing the English are good at, striking", but otherwise just let the cast be themselves as we know the formula right now... and we end up with a film that never gets stale.

The deliberately, cheerfully crap jokes are a joy too. The Duc and Duchesse de la Plume de ma Tante. "I'm Camembert. I'm the big cheese". "But then, you've always had magnificent balls, and I wouldn't miss one of them". In fact, these gloriously awful puns are indubitably the best bit.

This is easily the best instalment up to this point. Can they top this one?

Carry On Cowboy (1965)

 "I know a horse backfiring when I hear one!"

When I first saw this film many years ago I was, perhaps, more impressed than I was this time around, but it's still one of the better Carry Ons. The sets, locations and costumes genuinely look great: everything truly looks like the Old West. Although...well, the accents? Let's not go there.

We've settled into the cast we know from the peak of Carry On. Kenneth Williams really shines in a role that allows him to give a different but superb comic performance as the strait-laced yet hypocritical judge. Jim Dale is perfect as the hapless hero, and Sid James is strangely perfect as the baddie. Angela Douglas, though,is superb as the daughter seeking revenge for her father's murder. Bernard Bresslaw and Peter Butterworth now seem to be core cast members, with Kenneth Connors no longer a mainstay.

Charles Hawtrey as the chief of the "Indians"... yeah, that's weird, but they he was a somewhat weird man so that's not surprising. The stereotypes are, naturally, all wheeled out- smoke signals, "how", scalping, "firewater".

The jokes land well, as ever, the best being when the Rumpo Kid goes to "get" some money from the bank: we know what to expect from a Talbot Rothwell script. But both the production values and the performances serve to make this, if not right up with the best, one of the better Carry Ons.

Carry On Cleo (1964)

" Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!"

Yeah, like any other quote had the remotest chance of being chosen...

We know the format by now- the Carry Ons are six years in at this point, hugely popular... and this is the third instalment in 1964 alone. We know what territory the films can explore- this is the second to be set in the past. The cast is set- although this time Jim Dale is promoted to a more major role and we get a delightful cameo from Jon Pertwee.

We get a load of delightfully awful jokes (a soothsayer who says "sooth, sooth"!) and more fascinating little time capsule nuggets revealing the way things were in 1964- Caesar has difficulties in the senate when talking about the "winds of change" and is heard to protest that "You've never had it so good!" And, well, the less said about Cleopatra's blacked up bodyguard the better. It was another time...

On paper, this should have everything. But, for me, something doesn't quite click here, and I can't really say why. It's not the gleefully deliberate historical inaccuracies. The script may not, perhaps, be as good as other Carry Ons but it's perfectly good. The performances are excellent as ever.

Could it be, perhaps, that while Kenneth Williams is excellent as ever he may be a little miscast as Julius Caesar? Whether so or not, for me this one does,'t quite come off on the whole.

Carry On Cabby (1963)

 "She's taking a man's job."

Some Carry On films I've seen in my slow marathon through the lot of them, in order, have been better than others. But none of them have been actively bad. Until now.

The film is notable, I suppose, for the Carry On debut of Jim Dale in a fairly small but very noticeable role. Kenneth Williams is missed, but this isn't the first time he's been absent. No: what's fundamentally wrong is the script or, more fundamentally, the concept.

Sid James' character Charlie is a workaholic who works such long hours he badly neglects his wife Peg, played with aplomb by Hattie Jacques. So she sets up her own all-female cab firm in competition to teach him a lesson. There's comedy here... but there's also a lot of very real emotion. The tone is all over the place and the very real marital tension at the heart of the film both stops this feeling like a Carry On film. The mood just isn't right, however amusing the set pieces may be.

Also, Charles Hawtrey is shown lusting after women and even says "phwoooar" at one point. Er, this just doesn't work.

Some of the social attitudes shown are... interesting. The sexual politics, obviously. An odd undercurrent of almost prudery from the characters at times. The trade union stuff. The attitudes to sexual harassment. And the concluding scenes where Charlie is shown drunk but then gets into his taxi to save the day. Yeah. It was a different time. 

The film, however, just isn't any good. Unless you're making a point of watching the whole series, as I am, this one is eminently skippable.

Carry On Cruising (1962)

 "He's one of the biggest bull shippers in the business."

Well, there are a lot of Carry On films. They can't all be good.

I suppose this is a transitional film in some ways. It's the first in the series to be made in colour, most obviously. It's 1962. The Sixties haven't exactly started swinging yet, but perhaps there's something in the air. We are, as Philip Larkin put it, between the end of the Chatterly ban and the Beatles' first LP. So we have, I suppose, a few tentative steps in the direction of the naughty humour for which the films will soon become known. Very tentative steps, mind.

Unfortunately, the film just isn't very good. Charles Hawtrey's absence doesn't help, but the script just isn't as funny. And the format is tired, worryingly similar to the film's recent predecessors. Sid James is stuck in another straight role as a captain having to cope with members of his crew being replaced by incompetent newcomers, a familiar format. This both wastes James' talents and is worryingly repetitive.

The main performances can't be faulted. Kenneths Williams and Connor are superb, as is Liz Fraser/ Esma Cannon, again, is an inspiration. But some of the more second string performers aren't bringing much to the party. Worst of all, the jokes just aren't as good. This is more of a straight farce than previous films, almost but not quite in the usual style.

Still, I suppose we're bound to get the occasional dud. Here's hoping the next one will be better.

Carry On Regardless (1961)

 "P.. P.. Panting?"

"No, that's the way I always breathe."

These early Carry Ons are fascinating... and, don't get me wrong, they're not unfunny. But it'll be a while before we get to the really good stuff. I'm afraid I'm anal about these things. I'm doing them in order.

Like most of the early films, this is a much gentler farce than would later become standard. It fits the early pattern. Surprisingly, Kenneths Connor and Williams predominate, with Williams slightly evolving from "intellectual" to "camp", and Charles Hawtrey sidelined a bit, although his boxing skit is hilarious.

Yet we have interesting, nay fascinating features here. A young, tough, Bill Owen, long before Last of the Summer Wine. Joan Simms giving an extraordinary performance in the wine tasting skit. The unique Stanley Unwin, with a language of his own. Incidentally, on the subject of said oddball, I suggest you type "Wubble U" and "Petal". This is a man of the '50s who looms large-ish in rave culture.

The film is... quite good, but no more than that. Sid James makes some progression towards the laughing lech he would become, but at this point is still far more of a straight man. Esma Cannon, as ever, is superb. Why is she not more well known?

Overall, though, it's clear why this film, while perfectly fine, is no highlight. It's a stepping stone. Greater stuff lies ahead.

Carry On Constable (1960)

 "A dog! That's a sign of Pluto, the darkest, most evil planet of all!"

Ok, this is no one's favourite Carry On film. The best years lie ahead. And yet... these films have an early format. Kenneth Connor has a type of character. Kenneth Williams is less camp, playing pretenbtious gits... yet the scene where he and Charles Hawtrey dress as old women is gloriously gay for 1960. Such nuances fascinate.

Leslie Phillips is absolutely a fixture in these early films, and both he and Kenneth Connor get contrasting love plots. That's an intrinsic part of the plot at this point. Although the pairing of Hattie Jacques and Sid Jameas- in a surpreisingly straight yet superb role- dominates here.

The cimedy is amusing but, like the previous film, not great. That is no condemnation, heaven forbid: the film should be judged on its own terms, those of a time where the sixties show no signs, yet, of swinging.

It's a fascinating glimpse of policing, and indeed life. sixty-three years ago. Policing is very military: police officers march in the morning and leave upon reaching their beats. "Phrenology" is not dismissed as a pseudoscience by self-declared intellectuals. 

This film isn't great. But it's perfectly good, and fascinating. Also... wasn't Hattie Jacques lovely?

The Titfield Thunderbolt (1953)

 "This is dreadful. The next thing we know we'll be nationalised..."

This is not, perhaps, one of those Ealing comedies that are widely regarded as works of genius, yet it's fondly regarded. And I can see why; it's not exactly a laugh a minute but it's pleasant and diverting, and a fascinating glimpse into those last few years of steam rail, when everyone knew the writing was on the wall but hoped that steam's demise would be postponed for a little while.

Stanley Holloway impresses, and so does a slightly pre-screen fame Sid James in a middling role, but the large cast of character actors perhaps fails to quite set the film ablaze despite much enthusiasm. The script, too, is fuller on charm than it is on humour, but it's amusing to see a train-obsessed vicar surely based on the Rev. W. Awdry and the lengths some would go to in order to get around those horribly puritan opening hours. The characters are all of their time and memorable; it all feels very Dad's Army. And the plot- villagers upset at losing their train station decide to buy and run it themselves, despite the dastardly bus company trying to stop them- is just melodramatic enough to provide interest without spoiling the pleasant mood.

This isn't exactly Kind Hearts and Coronets, but it's a pleasantly enjoyable film. And I'm not particularly a rail enthusiast, but there's something awesome about seeing a steam locomotive in its natural habitat. And better to drink a proper pint in a railway carriage than lager in Downing Street.

Quatermass 2 (1957)

"This is the food, and it burns..."

I understand this is the first ever time a sequel was demarcated with the number "2" in the title?

It's interesting seeing this so shortly after its TV predecessor, as I was unable to do with the last film for obvious reasons; it all seems so rushed and fast paced. So many characters don't appear. The ending is more rushed than anything. No one goes into space. And Sid James is playing Roger Delgado. That's weird.

Add to that the fact that Brian Donlevy isn't at all likeable and you have a film that seems to be treading water and is disturbingly lacking in charm. Yes, it's in colour, it's often on location and it's all so much more expensive, but the sense of scale is so much less. There's only a vague sense of where the meteorites come from and the end- just firing a rocket- comes as a sudden deus ex machina. And don't get me started on all those Cockney natives of Cumbria.

Something of a damp squib, then, although I'm left wondering if I'd have liked it more if the TV series hadn't have survived.