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?

Follow That Camel (1967)

 "The pill? What do you think they used that for?"

"I can't conceive."

Another Carry On film today, albeit the second of two instalments without the title... and, well, we're in the middle of the peak period here, and this one may possibly be the best yet. 

We have to wince a little at the portrayal of the Algerian characters and the use of brownface in particular, good though Bernard Bresslaw is as antagonist Abdul Abulbul, and all the dodgy Arab stereotypes are out in force. One of the funniest jokes is about suicide. As for the jokes about what happens to Jane when alone with various men, well...

It was 1967, a very different time. But crikey.

Yet this Carry On treatment of Beau Geste and the French Foreign Legion works well. Sid James is absent, but the one-off appearance of the very American and very funny Phil Silvers in this very British comedy franchise works triumphantly. Silvers is magnificent here, as are Jim Dale and especially Angela Douglas. Kenneth Williams is also worthy of particular praise; he's very good and very funny without necessarily being camp here. He has far more range as a comic actor than even his admirers tend to acknowledge.

Yet what elevates this film to top tier status is the script. Yes, Talbot Rothwell gives us a very Carry On text, as he should, but this one is unusually witty as well as being ribald.

Here's hoping for a couple more of this quality before things apparently start to go downhill...

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 Screaming (1966)

 "May I blow it?"

It's October. The month of Halloween. The month of ghouls and ghost and things that go bump in the night... and the next film in my slow, chronological meanderings through the Carry On series turns out to be rather appropriate. Who'd have thunk it?

Just as recent films have been genre pastiches, this time we get a glorious taste on the British horror films from the likes of Hammer and Amicus, very much in their heyday at this point. The look of the film is perfect, as are the opening titles and song. Yet, as ever, the success of this film lies in the superb performances and the gloriously crap jokes... and yes, the innuendo about the whistle is absolutely the best thing in it.

No Sid James this time, but Harry H. Corbett is a more than adequate replacement in what is more or less a starring role. Fenella Fielding, too, is a wonderful new addition with perfect timing. But best of all, as so very often, is Kenneth Williams, hamming it up in the best possible way as the dastardly Doctor Watt (Doctor Who is his uncle, apparently...!).

Everything about this film is wonderful and utterly unafraid to be silly. Charles Hawtrey gets a surprisingly small role (was his personal life more than usually chaotic at this point?), but it says a lot that the absence of the great Sid James is hardly noticeable here.

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 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?

Carry On Teacher (1959)

 "They've taken the pea!"

My very, very slow marathon of the Carry On films continues with this fascinating third film. It's still the '50s, of course, and the format hasn't settled down to that we will soon come to expect. The film is good, but not great. Funny, but not quite hitting the potential that will soon be realised.

The plot is simple; the popular headmaster plans to lreave, so the kids set up a series of practical jokes during a school inspection to ensure he stays. Meanwhile, two comical romances between inspectors and teachers are pursued. That's it. The jokes are quite funny. The cast is superb, but constrained by a certain early tameness in the material.

More fascinating are the social mores on display here. 1959 was only eighteen yesrs before my birth, but it's a world away. The opening sketches evoke St Trinian's and the Bash Street Kids, a hintat the gulf in time that is to come.

The school is a Secondary Modern. Discipline is far stricter than would be thinkable today. Child psychiatry is caricatured and mocked. and yeah, the beating of children is an unbridgeable gulf. In 1959, it was routine correction of children. In 2023, it's kinky sex and decidedly adult. It's interesting to note that all but one of the teachers dislikes caning children, but they all reluctantly accept it as necessary. We can only shudder.

This is quite good. But, more than that, it's fascinating both as an early Carry On and as social history.

Carry On Nurse (1959)

“The sex-mad fools!"

I never did intend to marathon the Carry On films. But here I am accidentally doing the first two in succession so I suppose I am. Just expect it to go rather slowly.

Just as with Carry On Sergeant, a film with which it shares an awful lot, this isn’t yet quite what we think of the franchise. Yes, there is a little in the way of mild double entendres but sex is actually, while important, still treated in a picture postcard and, well, 1959 way.

And it has to be said that there’s an uncomfortable scene early on where sexual assault is casually treated as comedy. This was a comedy commonplace in 1959 but is not nice to see today and, although I can never know, I like to think I would have said that before #MeToo.

There’s no justification for that sort of thing, then or now, but we can at least describe it as an isolated scene. The rest of the film is not, perhaps, quite as good as it’s predecessir and not, certainly, quite pointing to the greatness ahead, but it’s interesting. Interesting to see Kenneth Williams playing another intellectual and, rather than being at all camp, being given a heterosexual romance. Interesting to see Charles Hawtrey being given a highly visible yet rather minor role. Interesting, still, that Sid James isn’t there at all. Yet a young Joan Sims impresses in her debut, Hattie Jacques is wonderful, and Bill Owen is quite shockingly and unrecognisably young.

Still, this film is entertaining enough but never quite catches fire. Why it was the only film in the series to be successful in America is beyond me.

Doctor Who: The Trial of a Time Lord Parts One to Four: The Mysterious Planet

Part One

“I intend to adumbrate two typical instances from separate epistopic interfaces of the spectrum.”

It gives me a warm fuzzy glow, all the ambiguity about the story title. Reminds me of the early Hartnells. (Although, as we’ll see, this reminds me mainly of The Krotons.) And I for one will be taking neither side in the debate as I’m rather fond of shades of grey.

Anyway, the story starts with the most fantastic special effects sequence we have yet seen- something which looks like, yet cannot be, CGI. And while we’ll see nothing as mind-blowing as this for the rest of the four episodes, the production values seem pretty impressive to me, whatever may have been going on behind the scenes. 

The Doctor (now with a red cravat) is put on trial by a bunch of Time Lords in a fairly obvious metaphor for off-screen events- actually a brilliant idea in principle, and something which mostly works very well, at least for these four episodes. This trial is also the last time we’ll ever see many of what have become the essential trappings of Time Lord society- robes, Chancellery Guards and the like.

Lynda Bellingham and Michael Jayston are great as the Inquisitor and Valeyard respectively, which is quite a relief as the story absolutely needs them to be. The Doctor has, of course, been deposed as president, and in the interests of providing a more dramatic narrative he insists on defending himself in spite of having had no chance to do any preparation whatsoever, which is hardly fair. He has no real idea what he’s supposed to be defending himself against either but as the charges against him seem to constantly change arbitrarily throughout the story this hardly seems to matter.

That’s the framing sequence dealt with; the four-parter proper is another good ‘un from Robert Holmes, crammed with great ideas and great dialogue. We have the planet Ravolox in the far future, a planet suspiciously similar to Earth. We have a relationship between the Doctor and Peri where they’re back to being friends, a relief after certain recent stories where their relationship has been decidedly awkward to watch. And we have the fantastic Glitz and Dibber, the, ahem, Holmesian double act at its finest. Their dialogue is fab; the whole riff on the prison psychiatrist is a joy.

The whole script sparkles, with Holmes seemingly in a much lighter mood than he has seemed to be in of late. The postmodern wit is back (“Ancient life on Ravolox by Doctor-“), and so are the great ideas. The Doctor and Peri discover what seem to be the ruins of Marble Arch, and it seems that this could almost be Earth except it’s two million miles out of place, instantly a great concept. And it’s a nice touch that the whole thing is laid out like something that was once a tube station, and its inhabitants call it “Marb Station”. I’m enjoying this hugely, which is more than can be said for the Doctor: “Can’t we just have the edited highlights?”

On top of this we have the village, with Joan Sims as Katryca doing an impressive female version of Brian Blessed. I love her reaction to Glitz’s story- she’s clearly no fool. We also get Balazar and his books, another top comedy moment. And just when you think it’s peaked already, here’s Tom Chadbon…

Part Two

“These bars remind me of home.”

The early courtroom scenes in this episode suddenly make it very clear; Holmes is writing for the Tom Baker Doctor, isn’t he? In fact, it’s mere minutes after this thought occurs to me that the jelly babies come out. And I can’t think of any better way of writing for Colin Baker’ Doctor. Certainly the early wobbles over the character’s instability seem to be long gone by this point, although Colin’s performance seems to wobble a bit at the “I always like to do the unexpected” line.

The Immortal has two human underlings who, much as they remind me of David and Tony from The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin, I shall henceforth refer to as Gonds for obvious reasons.

It’s another damn fine episode, with a bit more plot fed out to us amongst all the fun; Drathro and his “secrets” are to do with some “Sleepers” from Andromeda. Drathro’s power comes from a Black Light converter which relies on an aerial in Katryca’s village. An aerial which Dibber blows up, meaning that Marb station is soon going to blow up. Oops.

We also get another mention of Saward’s Speelsnapes, and some great character stuff. Drathro knows perfectly well that there’s rain falling outside and that the solar flares’ effects have been much exaggerated, but continues to ration water because that’s what the plan says, inflexible as any machine. A more sinister example of the same mindset, and the most disturbing aspect of the story, is the “culling” of “work units" above the set quota in spite of the fact this is completely unnecessary.

Part Three

“They are out of control, outside the plan.”

Holmes puts into the Inquisitor’s mouth some ironic commentary on recent off-screen-developments: “Valeyard, I would appreciate it if these brutal and repetitious scenes were kept to a minimum.” I’m tempted to see in this not only the obvious reference to criticism of the previous season but also a nod to the truncated length of this season, although sadly I think that may be a temptation too far. Still, more great dialogue.

It’s confirmed; Ravolox is Earth. And there’s now a race against time to avert a big bang. We get some postmodernism and political commentary too, though; the Matrix scenes are censored, something that can hardly fail to conjure up either recent criticism of the programme’s violence or government cover-ups. Mind you, Glitz and Dibber are blatantly talking about the Matrix.

Part Four

“Oh, the Black Light, yeah. We’ve got so much of that, sometimes we can hardly see.”

The Doctor is frustrated by his failure to persuade the solipsistic Drathro that, as he’s going to die anyway, he might as well allow everyone else to survive. But Drathro insists that “The work units exist only to serve me. Without me they would have no function.” This is a disturbingly accurate prediction of modern management practices…

Fortunately, Glitz’s “low cunning” proves to be more persuasive than the Doctor’s moral arguments and so catastrophe is averted. But still unsolved are three questions; why has Earth been moved two million years through space, and by whom? What are the “secrets” of the Sleepers? And what exactly was the point of the Valeyard showing us all that?

Well, that was great, Holmes at his best. And at this stage at least the trial scenes are fine. 5/5.