ThiefHott Too much of everything

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

wilvram A curiously neglected entry, perhaps as it was made in a period when the series had generally started to go into decline, but in my view it's one of the best of all, certainly in the top three. The historical outings were usually among the team's funniest, and Talbot Rothwell provides perhaps his most audacious script with a real plot, told in his trademark puns and double entendres, but with a real abundance of panache and wit, attaining an almost poetic quality. Sid has his definitive role as Henry and it's alarming that he almost missed out due to other commitments, with Harry Secombe being considered for the part; no doubt Harry would have made a great King Hal, but it wouldn't have been the same at all. Charles Hawtrey, with much more to do than usual, gives a glorious performance as the King's 'taster' who samples much more than the food. Barely two years later he had left the series for good; surely some way could have been found to accommodate this most cherished of eccentrics. Equally memorable is Terry Scott's lecherous Cardinal Wolsey, reliable only for getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. Who could forget Barbara Windsor as Rothwell's Bettina, the best Bet to come Henry's way in years. And Kenneth Williams is a treat, snide and supercilious as the scheming Thomas Cromwell. Incidentally, the gag about S.E.T. got the biggest laugh of all on first release, as it stood for 'selective employment tax' which meant nothing a few years later, but was cause of much political argy-bargy at the time. Some vintage K.W. can also be glimpsed on an interview he gave on the set at the time, as did Sid and Terry Scott in full regalia. Joan Sims and the rest of the cast are excellent too, as is Alan Hume's photography, making HENRY look very lavish for a low budget film. Only problem is I can't watch anything about Henry and his court without thinking of Sid, Kenny and the team.

bkoganbing With such people as Charlton Heston, Richard Burton, Robert Shaw, and Montagu Love playing Henry VIII you get the idea it's both a plumb role and a serious part. But the big screen never a Henry VIII like the one that Sidney James gives us in Carry On Henry VIII.Henry gets a couple extra wives in this one, dropped nicely between Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard. One's going to the block as the film opens. After that James gets a present of French princess Joan Sims cousin of King Francis I of France and that seems like a good bet to solidify an alliance.But on the wedding night it turns out Henry can't stand her garlic breath. Not only is it on all that French food, but the woman uses it like chewing gum. James is set to fling her out and he lights on a new truly bosomy queen for his taste.But that upsets the balance of power in Europe. Not to mention the machinations of Kenneth Williams as Thomas Cromwell and Terry Scott as Cardinal Wolsey.Then there's poor Charles Hawtrey who is the king's equerry and Queen Sims believes that her needs come first if the king isn't meeting them, maybe Hawtrey will. That was quite the seduction scene.Medieval England never saw history like this, but Carry On Henry VIII gives out with a lot of laughs.

petersj-2 This is a fabulously funny send up of history and the Carry on cast are in great form. Leading the fun is Sid James who plays Sid James playing Henry. Sid always played Sid and when he was in top form as a lovable rogue or old lecherous womaniser few could be better. He is wonderful here and I agree with others here who say the old boy was born to play this part. It is his movie but he does get great support. The great stalwarts are there Williams, Hawtrey and Sims. There's lovely work from Terry Scott. A real stand out is a brilliant cameo from an actor I know little about. Julian Orchard is brilliant and he camps it up deliciously.What a superb actor this man is, must read more about him. He had me in stitches. I normally found Kenneth Connor annoying but in this he shows he was actually a good actor when he was not stuck playing annoying mannerisms and clichés. His slap stick in other movies is awful and unfunny, here is restrained and good to watch. The carry on movies are attacked because they objectify women and are not politically correct. Not so. If you look at the movies very carefully surely it's at least commendable that the sexy women are not the anorexic women cast as sex idols today. Barbara Windsor is superb in this. She always was. She is certainly sexy but she was a full rounded, buxom woman with womanly features. She was not a match stick. The carry on movies are never given credit for this.Today anorexia is rife amongst young women and the carry on movies showed that you do not have to be slim to be sexy. Windsor was and even today is sexy. A glamorous great star.The gag of the garlic does not work today because this was made at a time when garlic was not something popular with the conservative English diet. Today we have all developed a love and taste for garlic. Back then it was exotic and most people, including those who never tried it, hated it.It was odd continental stuff and it stunk. We are all over that now. Garlic actually smells quite sexy, especially if you both are eating it. We also know its very good for you, natrures medicine. It was never eaten here in Australia until Italians immigrated. So its odd to us today to quite connect with the attitude that garlic was something horrible. Henry is however a classic Carry On and I loved it. The pace of the movie is zesty and crackles along brightly. It looks great with lovely costumes and sets. The music is wonderful. Its one of the best. I loved it.

alice liddell For most spoofs, the holy grail is to make so ridiculous the subject of attack that it will be impossible to take it seriously again. AIRPLANE! achieved this with the AIRPORT series, admittedly an easy target. CARRY ON HENRY may not have had quite the same effect - such is the unshakeable British obsession with the past, one of the film's main targets - but it's always nice to see that someone else found A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS and THE LION IN WINTER to be pompous tripe as well.HENRY, like CARRY ON UP THE KHYBER, is an example of a modest franchise miraculously finding an appropriate subject and creating a work of art. It may lack the jawdropping Bunuellian genius of KHYBER, but it has its own juicy pleasures. The jokes are franker than were usual at this point, but clever rather than crude, and funny when they were crude.This is also the last time the cast would be as brilliant as this - a well-oiled machine perfectly in control of the material. Kenneth Williams is aptly, hilariously Machiavellian; Charles Hawtrey is endearingly inappropriate as the brave knight and lover who undergoes all sorts of horrible tortures for his Queen - the heterosexual potency of these obviously gay stars are an uproarious counterpoint to the macho King's unsuccessful promiscuity. Joan Sims is glorious as ever as the ample, lascivious, French, garlic-obsessed Queen. But it is the godlike Sid James who rightly walks away with the film, cinema's best ever King Henry. The merging of his usual persona - the chuckling lecher who is repeatedly thwarted in his amorous endeavours (itself a remarkable comment of tyranny throughout the ages), married to a sex-mad woman he can't abide - with the portrayal of an historical icon creates satire of great depth.Whereas the aforementined, Oscar-garlanded pageants are rigidly respectful of English history, HENRY is breezily sceptical. Rather than search for continuity with the past, or examine various notions of Englishness, HENRY is very modern in its rejection of a certain kind of history, the meticulous reconstruction of a mythic past that can teach us about the present. HENRY knows that the past can only be viewed through the prism of the present, that history is a fluid, ever vanishing, entity, always reinterpreted to each generation's needs. The film quite clearly sets out its stall of bogusnes - it is based on recently discovered documents by William Cobbler - only to show how unreliable our grasp of history is; how it's always told in somebody's vested interests, at the expense of someone else.The film therefore prefigures the awesome Monty Python deconstructions of the 70s, with jokes about the Labour government, and with King's wenches who demand payment before favours, and whose fathers complain about taxation. The reduction here of English history to an aristorcratic bedroom farce is a more profound insight than any 'serious' epic has ever managed.