User reviews

Peter Sellers and Terry-Thomas here vie for the honours in a dated but sparkling piece of bunkum. A comedy that aims at so many targets (the cold war US/USSR rivalry, the UN, the British civil service, 'banana republics'...) normally fails, but this certainly has more hits than misses.

There are two unmissable scenes. The first is a military march-past which is rolling-on-the-floor funny from first to last: the mixed up commentary (note the point when the commentator finally gets a sentence right!); the shenanigans on the parade ground; and the collapsing review stand all combine to excellent effect. Second, a more minor but tasty scene where a table dancer (she is dancing ON the table) distracts Terry-Thomas in the course of his diplomatic discussions- surprising how much eroticism can get through the ludicrously heavy censorship of the period!

John Le Mesurier does an effective job in a 'wicked uncle' role torn straight from the pages of 19th century melodrama. Those who recall him from his small role in Ben-Hur might have cause to reflect that here is a supporting actor who gets about a bit!

Overall, both Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers have appeared in better films but, in parts, as funny a film as you are likely to find on a wet afternoon.

I'd love to know the story behind this Pacific Island country of Gaillardia where they seem to speak some kind of language close to Italian, but it's on the 33rd parallel latitude in the Pacific. Could some other enterprising Italian sailor before Columbus have gotten there and bred with the natives?

In any event they have a new young king in Ian Bannen courtesy of an assassination, a double dealing prime minister in Peter Sellers and they've been a British protectorate for some generations now. But the place is so small and insignificant that no one quite remembers it at the Foreign Office headed by Raymond Huntley.

It falls in the office of Miscellaneous Territories headed by Terry- Thomas and that should tell you all you need to know as he's sent out on a diplomatic mission to find out why everyone is so interested in this place all of a sudden.

Man In A Cocked Hat has some funny moments, but it's generally a weak satire on the art of diplomacy British style. This film recalls in the recent past the blundering diplomacy of the Suez Crisis which brought down a Tory Prime Minister served by a Foreign Secretary much like Huntley.

Terry-Thomas and Peter Sellers fans should like this though.

Partially from the perceived need, one feels, to include a conventional love story in the plot to make the film more marketable to a 1950's movie-going public.

The film starts with some wickedly funny characterizations of the upper-class bureaucrats running the Foreign Office --- the British are pilloried in the way that only the British can pillory themselves. But after that, the film loses its way in a conventional farcical plot. Terry-Thomas watchable as always, but the great talent in the cast (Peter Sellers, et al) is largely wasted.

A diverting, but not great film.

CARLETON-BROWNE OF THE F.O. used to appear with some regularity in the New York metropolitan television area of the 1960s, but it was called "THE MAN IN THE COCKED HAT". This was not unusual. The comedy "THE NAKED TRUTH" was called "YOUR PAST IS SHOWING". I saw it twice back then, and remember a few points that have been downplayed in these reviews.

SPOILERS AHEAD

It was not as serious a film as it seems to be to some of the reviewers. Rather it touched on the serious because it dealt with the end of Britain's empire and the way the cold world politics of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. got entwined everywhere. What was being shown in the satire was that Britain (in the personality of it's man on the spot, Carleton-Browne (Terry-Thomas)) was too civilized to handle the realities of the dark politics of the era (keep in mind the film is British, so it is not really looking closely at the view of British policies and actions from the point of third world countries). The irony of the film is that those civilizing traits happens to be the unifying point that brings an end to the civil war bloodshed that is smashing the island kingdom of Gaillardia apart.

After showing how behind the times the foreign office of Raymond Huntley and Terry-Thomas is, we are taken to Gaillardia. A play is being attended by the King and his oldest son and heir, both of whom are bored by it. One of them says something like, "I'm blow-ed if I stay here". At that a bomb explodes killing them (paging Alistair Sim in THE GREEN MAN). The younger son, Ian Bannen, returns to the island, only to find that his uncle (John Le Messurier in an unusually ruthless and power-hungry role) is there to tell him it would be wisest if he would abdicate now. Bannen, who has been living in England, is trying to make his country a successful constitutional monarchy like mother England. He calls in the British Foreign Office, as his local "support" is the corrupt Prime Minister (Peter Sellers). The Foreign Office sends Terry-Thomas.

He has no idea of what to do. The island is slowly splitting in half, due to the activities of Le Messurier and his candidate for the throne, a Princess of the house. Le Messurier does not know that the Princess (Luciana Palluzzi) has met the young Bannen when they both were returning home (both had been in England). Actually she is just as set to set up the constitutional monarchy as Bannen is (and as Le Messurier is not, nor - for that matter - as Sellers could care for). Unless you keep that in mind the plot of this seems aimless.

Carleton-Browne (in his fumbling) comes up with a solution. It resembles the shamble solutions of East and West Germany (until 1989), Cypress (until today), North and South Vietnam (until 1975), and North and South Korea. He sets up a dividing line for Gaillardia so that both parties will be satisfied. It is voted on by the U.N. Security Council without any problem. Then it turns out that the aggression that Le Messurier brought to the matter was due to the U.S.S.R. It seems that the Northern part of the island has a valuable mineral the Russians need. When Carleton-Browne tries to undo the agreement, because he had not known this, Russia says he can't.

The British have been patrolling the demilitarized border area. Suddenly open civil war breaks out. Le Messurier thinks it is his opportunity, only to find his niece has a mind of her own, and it has no place for him as an adviser. Similarly (earlier) Bannen overhears Sellers offer to put the young king out of the way if Le Messurier will agree that he continue as Prime Minister of the reunited country. Bannen and Palluzzi both disappear, rendering their "pupper masters" useless. They only reappear when they confront Carleton-Browne - together they have formed a majority counter-insurgency to overthrow Le Messurier and Sellers. They are uniting to save the country.

They do. Basically what happens at the end is that Bannen and Palluzzi will marry and bring a constitutional country (based on Britain) to the island. Le Messurier (stunned and sad faced) is going to retire to some hotel in Europe where ex-monarchs congregate at. He will be accompanied by Sellers.

The comedy is in the film, but it is not consistent because of the commentary on modern diplomacy. Russia gets slapped for supporting dubious regimes (it's supporting a monarchy here, of all things) for raw materials. The U.S. is not directly affected (it is Britain that is), so when a sequence of news headlines from Britain show what a disaster is about to happen, the American newspapers reflect some trivial items of passing interest. In the last sequence, symbolically, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. have sent teams to play a soccer match in front of the Gaillardians. Carleton-Browne, despite his naivety and bungling, has won a victory for British civility (if not for the empire). He kicks the first soccer ball, as Sellers looks with patient interest, and an explosion occurs (paging again, Alistair Sim). But a final newspaper headline mentions he is being awarded a knighthood for his wonderful success as a diplomat, while he recovers.

Another comedy about a plucky little country struggling through the jungle of the modern (for the forties) global world with only native wit and pluck to guide them, this is a fine entry in the Ealing cannon. Terry-Thomas sparkles as usual in the lead, as a feckless ministry man led to the brink of disaster when a nation he is supposedly in charge of starts attracting the interest of the world, Ian Bannen makes a great romantic lead, Peter Sellers puts in one of his quieter performances as a corrupt politico and the uber-suave John Le Mesurier plays against type as a rugged revolutionary leader. Lots of fun is had by all, especially the viewer; perhaps not in the very top echelon of Ealing classics, but pretty high up.

A flat and rather unfunny British comedy, it is nevertheless revived to a certain degree by nice locations and an interesting, though hardly brilliant, performance from Peter Sellers. I am not sure if Terry-Thomas and Thorley Walters were supposed to look so alike, but either way their similarity in appearance does not help the film, since they are both playing such similar characters that it is easy to forget who is who. The film does have the odd amusing moment or two, and overall it is quite okay stuff to watch, but it is rather far off the par of typical 1950s and 1960s British comedy - and not in a positive direction.

Surely not yet Sellers at his best. I believe that he still had to be fully discovered. This is Sellers at the very beginning. He was proud of this at the time because he had just put his foot through the door. the best was yet to come. But hey I did appreciate how good this must have been for its time though. Im sure it got the audience laughing back then. I had high hopes to be in a fit, pretty confident I would be cracking up as always with Sellers, but not all that much with this one. But it was worth a watch since the story is based on this island which very much reminds me of the one I live on. Tonight Im going to watch another one of Sellers first and early works called "The smallest show on Earth", I hope it will get me giggling more than this one did as one would expect.

This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.

Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.

The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.

It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.

The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.

Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.

None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.

Though this comedy is not strong on comedy and its love story is desperately short on charm, there is something about this film that is cunning enough to hold your attention. For starters it has Peter Sellers, which is usually more than enough to hold one's attention, but for a comedy in which Peter Sellers stars in, well, it should damn well be funny, right?

Because this movie has a difficult time in hammering out the laughs, especially with the likes of Sellers and Terry-Thomas, it suffers greatly.

The biggest attribute for this film is in the idea behind the story; failing upwards. I do like to see these types of films, perhaps this is why the film is cunning enough to hold one's attention.

Not a terrible film, but you could always see better films with Peter Sellers in them.

Mildly amusing, but hardly, if ever very funny.

While Terry-Thomas is not all that well-known today, he made some wonderfully funny films in the late 1950s and 60s. As for Peter Sellers, he made some ingenious and funny films. You'd think putting these two men together would result in a memorable film...but this is not the case with "Carlton-Brown of the F.O.". While mildly interesting, it's far from a classic. Given the material, it should have been a lot more interesting.

1959 was the same year that Peter Sellers starred in the wonderful parody of politics and a tiny fictional film, "The Mouse That Roared". Oddly, "Carlton-Browne" has a very similar plot, some of the same cast and came out at almost the same time! But, because "The Mouse That Roared" was such a wonderful film, "Carlton-Browne" has been forgotten.

The film is about the fictional country of Gaillardia--a tiny country that had been part of the British empire. When the film begins, the ancient British representative on the island alerts his superiors in the UK that "something is up" there. Apparently, some folks have been digging holes and some Russian-types have been seen there. This information eventually results in a series of international incidents that are all a microcosm of the struggle between the East and West at the time.

So why did the film turn out so ordinary? Well, most of it is the writing. It just isn't all that funny. And, what's worse is that Sellers is almost completely wasted. A very talented man, he DID have a habit of making brilliant and dull films throughout his career. While this one isn't bad, it is a bit dull here and there. Given a re-write, better pacing (it drags) and less "kooky" music, the film might have worked as a comedy. As is, it is a bit clever but that is all.

The Island of Gaillardia was discovered in 1720 when an English vessel with a cargo of oranges ran into it in the dark. As a result, Great Britain gained a colony, the captain lost his ticket and the inhabitants lived on marmalade for months. Great Britain little knew what she was taking on. With two branches of the Royal family at daggers drawn, war between North and South had long been a national pastime and neither side took kindly to outside interference. After 200 years, Great Britain threw in the sponge and granted the islanders self governance. Sadly no one told her representative and in 1959 he was still at his post when the present king was killed, his son brought in and both the UK and the USSR looking to gain favour. From the UK, Carlton-Browne is sent to negotiate.

With a big cast of reliable British names in the leads I was keen to see this film. However it failed to really impress me at any point for any sustained period. The plot had potential and is only really let down by the prolonged courtship/romantic scenes that producers feel obliged to include in many comedies of the period. Sadly this reasonably well designed plot has two other major flaws. Firstly it becomes a little too complex for such a lightweight affair as this – political motives and hidden agendas are all brought in which, while not complicated, certainly clutter the film. Secondly it is simply not very funny or even amusing.

Near the start and throughout the film has quite a few good jokes at the expense of the British system, the opening credits (partly quoted in my first paragraph) make a dig at the Foreign Office and there is a good running joke about the Ministry of Works Council constantly digging holes around the Island. This is not enough and the rest of the film is just about passable as it lacks any clear humour and any potential whimsy is choked by the messy plot.

It is a shame because by and large the film had a very talented cast at it's disposal. Thomas is good in the lead but seemed quite understated (but still a good lead). Sellers has a few good scenes but is largely underused and a bit of a waste. It was good to see Le Mesurier in a role that didn't require him to be wishy-washy as usual but again he has little to do. I was pleased to see Paluzzi (Thunderball in the film as I have always felt she is a very beautiful woman in a classic beauty type of way with a real touch, it is a shame that most of her scenes are the excess romantic things.

Overall this film is just about light enough to pass the time but I did find it to be a real disappointment. The plot starts well but gets confused and cluttered, the cast are given little to do to show their talents and the material is amusing at best, but never laugh out loud funny. Shame, there are plenty of better films with these talents in so why waste time on this one?

The main reason people still care about "Carlton-Browne Of The F.O." is that it features Peter Sellers in a second-billed role. But watching this film to see Peter Sellers is a mistake.

Sellers plays Amphibulos, a vaguely reptilian prime minister of the dirt-poor island nation of Gaillardia, formerly a British colony, now hosting a lot of Russian diggers during the height of the Cold War. Amphibulos wants to play both U.K. and Soviet interests against each other for easy profit, "everything very friendly and all our cards under the table". Terry-Thomas is the title character, a lazy British diplomat anxious to show Gaillardia that Great Britain hasn't forgotten them, all appearances to the contrary.

A positive review here says: "The reason this movie is considered average is because the comedy is understated." I would argue that the reason "Carlton-Browne" is considered below average is because the comedy is non-existent.

After a decent opening that establishes the film's only two strengths, a sympathetically doltish Terry-Thomas and John Addison's full-on larky score, things quickly slow down into a series of slow burns and lame miscommunication jokes. The low opinion of Carlton-Browne by his boss and the obscurity of Gaillardia (which no one can find on a map) is milked to death. By the time we actually reach the island (after a labored series of airsick jokes), expectations are quite low.

They're still too high, though. The island itself, which seems to exist either in Latin America or the Mediterranean, is so pathetic its honor guard faints at the airport, and the review stand falls apart in the middle of a parade. The army is apparently still horse drawn, allowing for another lame aural gag by a thick-accented announcer: "In war, the army uses many horse."

Sellers never quite takes center stage even when we're on his character's island. The plot is taken over instead by Ian Bannen as King Loris, who inherits the throne of Gaillardia after his father's assassination. Bannen is dull and plays his part as straight as it is written. Normally this would make him the likely target for scene-stealing by Sellers, but trapped behind a thick accent and greasy moustache, Sellers is only a threat to those of us who remember him far more happily in two other films made this same year, "The Mouse That Roared" and "I'm All Right, Jack."

Strange that this film, like "Jack", was a Boulting Brothers production, with Roy Boulting here serving as co-director alongside Jeffrey Dell. Usually Boulting films combine wicked social satire with anything-goes comedy, but here there are only fey jabs in either direction. Amphibulos works his mangled-English vibe for all its worth ("This man is like, how do you say, the bull in the Chinese ship") while Carlton-Browne is generally ragged on by his superior far more than he seems to deserve.

The weakest and most protracted element of the film is young Loris's romance with Ilyena. Score one point for her being played by ravishing Luciana Paluzzi, dock one for the fact that they are apparently cousins is never addressed.

The film winds up with a lamely staged revolution whose surprise resolution will surprise no one, and a final bit of action by Carlton-Browne that would seem to nail the lid on his coffin literally. Apparently he lives to see another day, but the film of the same name is strictly DOA.

This is one of those films that has a host of Stars from the Fifties and you'd think it would be a success. But sadly these days it's just a bygone relic only worth watching to see your favourite actors and tick it off your seen list..

It's really about the Foreign Office. The F.O. in the title.

So kind of like a Private Eye film looking into the buffoonery of British oversea politics and it's jargon.

The script isn't funny or even witty these days. Probably at the time (1959) it was topical. But barely understandable today. So despite lots of decent actors, the script is just bland and hardly raised a smile.

"Man in a Cocked Hat" is a British comedy satire that just doesn't have that many laughs. The DVD I watched is from a Peter Sellers collection that had this film under its original British title, "Carlton Browne of the F. O." Frankly, that title makes a lot more sense.

Others have weighed in on this film, and I agree with the majority that the film is pretty flat - which means, not very funny. With this cast, there was potential for great laughter. The plot is okay, even a very good one. But it seems to me that so much was put into the ridiculous "power" of the fictional island nation of Gaillardia and not enough into crispy, witty dialog among the characters of the British Foreign Office. So, the silly antics on Gaillardia just don't get the laughs, and the great comedic cast of Terry-Thomas, Peter Sellers, Raymond Huntley, John Le Mesurier and Miles Malleson is mostly wasted.

This probably isn't a film that many people would stay awake through or watch much beyond the first 15 minutes or so.

Considering he the strength of the cast, this was a real let down. The script just isn't up to the likes of Terry Thomas, Peter Sellers, et al.

An opportunity missed.