MovieChat Forums > All the Queen's Men (2001) Discussion > Cum On Shud Have A Betta Rating Than Thi...

Cum On Shud Have A Betta Rating Than This lol


Pretty Cool Film lol










"How U Doin?"

reply

Not really. It wasnt really that good :/

reply

And yet you're here looking at its page on the net? Righto.

It was certainly entertaining. I found it funny and quite touching!

reply

You're another one of these people who thinks the IMDb discussion boards are only for people who adore the films and want to compliment it arent you?

I can come on here to see other opinions and DISCUSS my opinion with them, ya know.

reply

Not only was this film a jolly good caper with both subtle and blunt humour, it managed to create a certain amount of drama with some moving acting on the part of James Cosmo and Eddie Izzard, particularly during the part of the film where they are caught in the bombing of the city. The film also highlights, in part, the lunacy behind the Nazis' ideas and behaviour in pre-invasion Germany. Edward Fox plays his witty, yet unfortunately small, part in the film at a level expected from such a veteran of the British Film and Television industry. First class stuff!

reply

it seemed messy in parts, but it was definatley worth more than 3.5

reply

i agree, it's a good laugh.

Whose pig is this????!!!.

reply

My friends and I love this movie,it was funny and touching and really under rated!

reply

Completely agree with you on the funny and touching aspect. It's worth the watch.

reply

Just watched this (after being aware of it for only a year or so) & only ever seen it in the shops a couple of days ago, when I saw it in a clearance sale in Woolworths for a POUND!

Quite an entertaining film...& what struck me most was the very smooth 'shift' from comedy to wartime adventure tale.

As people have said, it was a good performance from James Cosmo (a much underused actor IMO...its a shame he seems to get nothing more than supporting roles) Eddie Izzard didnt do a bad job, & David Birkin was pretty good. Matt LeBlanc I haven seen in much other than 'Friends' & 'Joey', but he seems competent, if not outstanding here, & Nicolette Krebitz & Oliver Korittke did well too.

It pokes some gentle fun at the British, though that was within the comic aspects of the film, & without the almost malicious-seeming tone of some of Hollywoods efforts.

Yes, they all looked highly unconvincing as women (except pretty-boy David Birkin) but without that level of caricature the comedic aspects of the film would hardly have worked.

Yes there are plot holes, & some historical inaccuracies, but no more than in many much 'bigger' films, & they hardly distract from the tale thats being told.

Kept me entertained anyway.

reply

I just finished the film and it has been remarkably under-rated. I cannot believe that the reviewer gave it little more than 3.5 stars because it is clearly worth a lot more. Plot holes, yes. Some filmic faux pas, certainly. But as far as I can see, this was not a film that we are meant to take too seriously. In many ways it held its own as both a comedy and a war drama. Finally, I thought that the twist at the end was quite clever.

All the Queen's men deserves a better mark than it has at present.

7 stars from me.

reply

I don't get it too, fun moviem, underrated a bit.

reply

Much better than I expected. Cute and funny.

reply

i loved this movie, i'm thinking about buying it, i dont care what any one else thinks. it was funny and 1940's culutral and charming (even if it was during the ww2 experience which scared people, shocked thousands and destroyed things but)

Eddie is brillient and i love him so much, people say its bad but for *beep* sake if you dont like it then dont sit and watch it you bunch of gays, dont waste your time complaing about it when you could be doing something better and cute but kinda gay american CGI movies for kids featuring taling animals and guest star voices by people like justin timberlake may be where its at now but for *beep* sake there all samey and boring now.

also the whole 1940's style might be old but its intersting and cultural and apart from the war part i like it a little.

also, STOP *beep* CALLING MATT 'JOEY', HE'S NOT JOEY!! HE WAS ONLY JOEY IN FRIENDs AND THATS ALL, HIS NAME IS MATT..HE'S AN ACTOR!!!

also good looking men cross dress are hot so shut up.

reply

Calm down, and breathe for a second, okay? You don't need to call people names, and I'm pretty sure no-one in this thread called him that.

Other than that, though, I agree. I have no idea why this was rated so low. In my opinion, it had a great balance of comedy and drama and the actors each performed their parts well.

As for people who may have rated it lower because of historical inaccuracies: this is a film listed as 'comedy/war/action/drama'--nowhere does it say 'historical fiction,' so don't judge it based on what it was never supposed to be. It provided what it was supposed to when it was supposed to.

Also, I may just be blind to this, but what were the plot holes people keep bringing up? I didn't notice any, so please enlighten me.



"Jack!" "Daniel, how do I know you're you?" "Because." *pause* "OK good enough."

reply

This has some of the best requotable lines I've heard in ages. The more often I watch it, the more I love it. And who doesn't love Eddie Izzard in a dress--I mean, COME ON! Hot, funny and oh-so-British. I laugh out loud at James Kosmo--what a guy...and what a change from the stuffy roles he is usually forced to play. If the American had been someone who could actually act, this would have been over the top!

reply

Agreed.. Definitely underated. People take it too seriously I think...

reply

Also agreed. I really enjoyed this flick, though I watched it at home, not in a theater.

I think the big mistake was marketing it as a comedy. It's really not.

reply

It was a good film, but it`s a pity you can't write the Queens English instead of some silly drivel

reply