wilsonstuart-32346
The 'Carry Ons' had been wound up - to very little fanfare - nearly fifteen years before Carry On Columbus was released back in 1992. I was in high school then and I remember it vaguely; along with most contemporary audiences at the time, I certainly made no effort to actually watch a Carry On film in the cinema. Followng a dismal run Carry On Columbus soon faded at the box office , and it's only thanks to ITV 4 that I've gotten the chance to occasionally watch it over recent years.The storyline - a take on Christopher Columbus and The New World, in case you missed the hint - is stale and lifeless. Too many of the performances are forced, and the timing and delivery - always essentially in a Carry On film - just isn't there; if the 'magic' that existed between James, Jacques, Butterworth, Connor, Williams, Windsor, et al (despite whatever else was going on behind the scenes) was spent by 'Emmannuelle' then it was unlikely it was going to be rekindled in the early Nineties - particularly with a group of actors and comedians from a very different background. This was at the heart of Columbus's failure - the Alternative Comedian of the 1980s was extremely critical (often with good justification) of their 'traditional', 'music hall' or 'old fashioned' predecessors; and when they got their own chance on the silver screen their big shot was yet another Carry On film...it was no wonder they struggled to adapt to the 'seaside postcard' style they'd spent nearly a decade disparaging. By trying to reinvent a sanitised version, and underestimating or misunderstanding the job in hand, the Alternatives surgically removed the essence of what made the series such a success in the first place - even if realities were a bit more hit and miss than the myth suggests. Peter Rogers takes his share of blame as well - if the same formula was well passed its sell by date in 1978 (or 1976 if count 'Dick' as the last decent entry) did he really expect a different result in 1992?With one or two exemptions (notably Jim Dale and Sara Crowe) most of the cast look all at sea here - and not in the way Colombus would have liked. It says much about low expectations that people can say this is better than the last two or three entries is a plus point - I'd say it was a necessity! Not the worst but it's near the bottom of the league, and one for the completionists only.
Ephraim Gadsby
Two good reasons to watch "Carry on Columbus" are Jim Dale and Bernard Cribbins. Dale, who occasionally seems to be channeling Sid Caesar, starred in several "Carry On" movies of the late sixties and seventies. Long-time comedy star Cribbins made enough "Carry On" flicks to qualify as an early regular. These two veterans show up all the young comics shoe-horned into "Columbus" and their scenes together are the best in the movie.Also showing up to good effect are Leslie Phillips and June Whitfield – another pair of comedy veterans – as the King and Queen of Spain. A bit of the sheen is taken off their glow by rumors that Frankie Howerd and Joan Sims were originally envisioned for these roles. It's too bad Howerd, who died the year "Columbus" was released, was unable to give one last well-honed dithering character as the king, or as – well, see below.Apart from Dale and Cribbins, "Columbus" is a better bad movie. It is not "bad" in the sense of being shoddy. (Like all "Carry On" movies, it was made as cheaply as possible, but the cheapness underscores the "Carry On" charm and gave "Carry On" movies a feel all their own.) "Columbus" is bad because it is a comedy without enough laughs.The first few minutes of "Columbus" are rotten, with alternative comedian Rik Myall apparently trying to stand in for the irreplaceable Kenneth Williams. The first scenes prepare one for worse things to come, though they never get truly awful until the end. The movie ends horrifically, after Columbus arrives in America and meets excruciatingly unfunny, Bronx-accented, stogie-smoking natives.Bookended between these frightfully bad scenes are some fairly funny moments. "There's no mustard on it" should be a "Carry On" classic line. "Will it eat me whole?" even more so. There are several guffaws, just not enough to make the comedy work as a whole, despite some game performances by newcomers as well as the few old hands who signed aboard.If this same movie had been billed merely as a spoof of the serious Columbus movies released in and around 1992, "Carry On Columbus" might have fared better. It is marginally superior to Graham Chapman's gruesome 1983 sea-going disaster, "Yellowbeard." "Columbus" should have learned from Chapman's shipwreck, which it resembles in too many ways."Yellowbeard" boasted three Pythons in the cast (Chapman, John Cleese and Eric Idle). Several Mel Brooks alumni were on hand (Marty Feldman, Madeline Kahn, Kenneth Mars). Notable British actors who had been successes in comedy (Michael Hordern and James Mason) rubbed shoulders with British comedy legend Spike Milligan and America's Cheech and Chong. Not buoyed by a good script, many laughs or a good ending, all hands sailing in "Yellowbeard" sank without a trace."Yellowbeard" petered out with unfunny natives in a new land. So did "Columbus." With a better ending (finding several former "Carry On" members being held in a cave, say, or maybe an unbilled appearance by a Frankie Howerd as a native high king), "Columbus" might have been acceptable."Columbus" might have turned out as a silly but diverting little comedy along the lines of later Leslie Nielsen flicks (which it resembles more than its "Carry On" predecessors). Unfortunately, "Columbus" had the weighty "Carry On" imprimatur slapped on it.The "Carry On" label means something. Originally sly social comedies, by the 1970s "Carry On" became wall-to-wall nudge-nudge, wink-wink double-entendres. Ephemeral beauties like Shirley Eaton ("Goldfinger") and Jill Adams ("The Green Man") made way over time to more earthy sirens Liz Fraser ("I'm All Right, Jack") and Barbara Windsor."Carry On" starred a host of Britain's finest talents from radio and the movies, including but not limited to Kenneth Williams, Sid James, Leslie Phillips, Hattie Jacques, Joan Sims, Kenneth Connor and Eric Barker. None of these actors appeared in all the "Carry On" movies. Some dropped out for a while and came back. Others dropped out forever because of low pay or health problems (including death). Not even Kenneth Williams was in every single "Carry On." But as "Carry On" carried on, the "Carry On" brand acquired a certain undefinable definition.A naval movie called "Watch Your Stern" (1960) was funnier than that year's "Carry On Constable." Featuring Leslie Phillips, Kenneth Connor, Joan Sims, Hattie Jacques, Sid James and Eric Barker, "Stern" also contains cameos by Spike Milligan and Eric Sykes. It was probably even more delightful in that it did not have to drag the already heavy weight of the "Carry On" series name. Even though "Constable" was only the fourth "Carry On" and the series had not become altogether scatological, the series was already attaining legendary status. "Columbus" should have been a one-off "from the people who brought you 'Carry On'" rather than trying to resuscitate a dead series. Though the entertainment quality of the "Carry On" series was probably more nostalgic than real, the actors were at the core of each movie. They did their best with the material they were given, whether it was more serious and heartwarming (early on) or totally risqué (later).At a first look, "Carry On, Columbus" was wildly different because of its mostly new cast. Star Jim Dale was a welcome face familiar to devotees of the series, but too many "Carry On" regulars had died (James, Williams, Jacques, Peter Butterworth, etc.) or, for whatever reason, chose not to appear (Sims, Kenneth Connor, Bernard Bresslaw, Liz Fraser, etc.) No more or less funny than later Leslie Nielsen movies, "Carry On Columbus" was stuck with a brand name. Think of a James Bond movie where they replaced Sean Connery with Charles Hawtrey."Carry On Columbus" is probably no worse than "Wrongfully Accused" or "Dracula Dead and Loving It." But as a "Carry On" it did not and probably could not meet the expectations of its audience.
thetudorgirl
I love the carry on films and will defend this particular one as I think it was good, it was not as bad as some people make out, the only thing I hated about it was that they had Americans in it and they should never have done that, the carry ons are not about the Americans, but apart from that I found it a funny film and Jim Dale is brilliant in it as usual. I know it didn't have the rest of the cast in it that we all love and no so well, but come on guys this film was not that bad and was a nice tribute to the originals. However I do think that no more carry on films should be made now as the talent just isn't there anymore, the stars of today are just not carry on material, they are not funny and do have enough to class to make a carry on film work, we should all just remember and cherish the originals now and forget about making anymore.
noledge
I know its not up to the standard of alot of the older films, but its miles ahead of Emmanuelle and England im my opinion. It also has some VERY funny lines, the best ever in any Carry On film in fact:
"Now Columbus. Father Torquemada has read your document"
"But its in Hebrew" "Yes, well he had a Jewish grandmother didn't he?" "At the seminary I attended it was compulsory" "What you mean they all had Jewish grandmothers?"
Absolutely the best line in any Carry On film! Along with other good ones like: "In gods name... Make it go!" "Fine foods. Exotic women. Gay companions" Yeah its not as good as the others and doesn't feel part of the series with so little of the original stars involved, but its good enough in parts and I hear tell that they are now making another film 'Carry On London' - bring it on!
