TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews Really, the film is as confused as some would argue the cross-dressing military units are. I'm not a fan of John Cleese. That's hardly a secret. I tolerate him on Monty Python, and I will grant that he can entertain, but as a general rule, I don't exactly make it a point to seek out his work(though I do not make as strong efforts as I could to avoid it, either... I reserve that for those that I genuinely cannot stand). This film was purchased for me by someone mistaking it for something having to do with his comedy troupe(with good cause, as its crude pun title was translated to "Python at the Front Lines"). A rather see-through attempt at passing it off as something it's not, really, as he's not joined by even a single other member of the group. One of the main problems is that this cannot seem to make up its mind on what to be; a comedy or a war-drama. Neither of them are achieved particularly effectively, separate from each other, and whenever the two are attempted at the same time, it's even worse. There are times when the war aspect seems tacked on, as if the writers were busy writing the attempts at comedy, and suddenly remember that it's set during war-time. The drama begot little emotional response from me(albeit I will admit that it did manage some, near the very end). The comedy... I don't know, it seemed to mainly consist of the flamboyantly gay character being, well, flamboyantly gay, and shining a spotlight on the fact that the men, soldiers, no less... wait for it... are wearing *dresses*. Yup. That's about it. I guess the musical numbers weren't bad. Cleese does nothing to amuse, playing it more straight than many of us were aware he was capable of. He plays someone who, at least appears to be(it's not really clear) deeply religious, and I couldn't tell if this trait was supposed to be part of the comedy or the drama aspect of the film. I don't know, if you're into musicals and/or men in drag, you may like it. I recommend this to people in either or both of the aforementioned groups(I won't stoop to the level of suggesting that those who enjoy one are highly likely to also enjoy the other), but I'm not sure who else to steer towards this. Don't watch this thinking that Cleese does what you're used to(those goofy-looking poses that you see on the cover of the home release... they're from *one* bit in the film, during the credits, which is really the only time he's Python-y). 5/10

Steviardo The play - and screenplay - by Peter Nichols is primarily based on his own experiences of his life in an army entertainment troupe (Combined Services Entertainment) in Singapore and on the characters in the troupe with him.(In this troupe were also British Comedy legends-to be,Stanley Baxter and Kenneth Williams) He covers the poor conditions that the artistes had to entertain under,the poor performances given by sub-standard amateurs and how it was all led by an army man with no understanding or taste for 'theatricals'.In reading the negative reviews,the points most criticised are John Cleese's performance and the 'High Camp' element.In the original stage production,the Cleese role was played by Nigel Hawthorne and one would prefer to see him in the film as Cleese seems too close to his Basil Fawlty characterisation to really fit in with the rest of the ensemble.But he still turns in a good performance - most notably in his scenes with Elphick and Quilley.As for the 'High Camp' element,this is a story about an entertainments unit where army personnel had to don drag for their troop shows.Add to that any theatrical setting - whether it be amateur backstage dramatics or the Moulin Rouge - and the story will have by it's very nature theatrical/camp elements.These are part and parcel of the scenario and should be accepted and expected in such a storyline.The entire ensemble is perfectly cast.The performances are well observed and far from stereotypes.They are realistic and likable.When they are homesick,we feel it.When they are injured or killed,it is genuinely heartbreaking.Bruce Payne especially is tear-jerking as the handsome lad who can't wait to get home so he can finally make love to his girl but at the end is returning home in wheelchair and will never have sex again.The standout performance is unquestionably the late Denis Quilley as Terri Dennis (a character loosely based on the drag performer Barri Chatt).His performance,as the only professional 'aritiste' in the company is both funny and moving.Terri is the star of the shows and his scenes as Dietrich,Vera Lynn and Carmen Miranda are brilliantly comedic,as is most of Quilley's performance as the very camp fish out of water.But it is NOT a one-note performance and Terri's character also shows incredible depth,warmth,vulnerability,strength and perhaps the most well-rounded character as a whole.It is an award-worthy performance and a good one to be remembered for.So in a nutshell,this a comedy film that has effective dramatic moments because the acting is so flawless.It has an impressive and memorable star turn,but it still doesn't eclipse the rest of the excellent cast.It is entertaining,heart-warming and very human.And most of all,it deserves to be better known and more widely appreciated

Bernie-56 This film might have proved funnier if the plot hadn't been ripped from "It Ain't Half Hot, Mum", which is about a gay song a dance troup in Malaya and their straight RSM. Trouble, It Ain't Half Hot was genuinely funny whereas POP can't decide whether it's British High Camp or a war film. (Of course, being High Camp, it will go straight over the heads of US audiences.)It succeeds as a camp comedy in the beginning but fails as as a war movie. Some of the editing is risible -- looks as if the editor got a new wipe effects machine for Christmas. John Cleese reprises his role as Basil Fawlty, now in the army; he even gives us his Funny Walk from Python. Sheesh. Unfortunately he is just not a patch on the great Windsor Davies in the identical role in It Ain't Half Hot. The troup of actors is great and there are many famous faces therein.Blooper: Although supposedly set in Singapore the actors are 'huffing' in several night scenes. Hmmm. Must have been cold at Pinewood those nights.Summary -- Can't make up its mind what it wants to be and falls between two stools. Starts well and finishes disagreeably. A time filler only/

Dan Harkless A bad film. It can't seem to decide whether it wants to be a goofy comedy about flamboyantly gay showtune performers or a tragic and realistic war movie. Any attempts on its part to be both at the same time are unsuccessful, in my opinion.Big fans of John Cleese might be tempted to watch this movie thinking that Cleese is enjoyable to watch whatever he's in, but he really has nothing to work with in this material. He plays it very straight (in more ways than one) and the filmmakers don't even manage to squeak much humor out of this contrast with the other members of the performing troupe.Skip this film.