Based on the 1957 BBC Radio play of the same name by John Mortimer, this is a chronically unfunny and remarkably insubstantial satire of the British legal system. The screenplay by Pierre Rouve is so lacklustre and slowly paced that it makes a tortoise look like Usain Bolt or maybe even Barry Allen. In this respect, it may have lost something in its translation to the silver screen since Mortimer was a generally excellent writer. However, this is my first (and very probably last) exposure to this particular work so I can't be sure. The director James Hill does the best that he can but his efforts are largely in vain. Given the talent associated with the film and my legal background, I was very much looking forward to it but it turned out to be a bitterly disappointing experience.
The film stars Peter Sellers in an atypically mediocre performance as Wilfred Morgenhall, an incompetent barrister in his 60s whose career is distinguished only by its lack of distinction. He is delighted when he receives a dock brief to defend the quiet, meek Herbert Fowle - played quite well by Richard Attenborough, albeit in a distractingly false nose - who has been accused of murdering his wife Doris. Fowle is a bird seed salesman and, unfortunately, his side-splittingly hilarious name is as witty as the film gets. We are subjected to a series of flashbacks, each more uninteresting than the last, in which Fowle's motive for the crime is revealed. He disliked Doris' penchant for telling poor jokes and cackling like a hyena every three seconds and tried to set her up with their similarly irritating and obnoxious lodger Frank Bateson so she would leave him and he could get some peace and quiet at long last. However, she instead kicked Bateson out for being too familiar and Fowle killed her because she would not leave him. If I were a member of the jury, I would have been inclined to vote "not guilty," frankly. This is a funny idea but the execution fails to deliver so much as a single laugh, unless you count laughs of derision. At one point while ruminating on his disastrous attempt to defend Fowle, Morgenhall reflects that he should have asked the jury if any of them longed for a quiet life without jokes of any sort. If they do, I would recommend this film to them. Personally, I abide by the maxim that a day without laughter is a day wasted so I won't be watching it again.
Overall, this isn't an absolutely terrible film but it is such a forgettable, insubstantial one that I found it difficult to even work up the energy to criticise it. When you never laugh (at least in a non-derisive manner...) or even smile once during a comedy, you know that you're in trouble. This is my one of least favourite films of the year so far, I'm afraid. I really, really hope that it will end up as one of my Bottom Five of 2016 or I'll be in even more trouble. It's kinda odd since I think of Attenborough as being my good luck charm as far as films are concerned. He directed and/or appeared in four films in my Top Five of 2015!
The film stars Peter Sellers in an atypically mediocre performance as Wilfred Morgenhall, an incompetent barrister in his 60s whose career is distinguished only by its lack of distinction. He is delighted when he receives a dock brief to defend the quiet, meek Herbert Fowle - played quite well by Richard Attenborough, albeit in a distractingly false nose - who has been accused of murdering his wife Doris. Fowle is a bird seed salesman and, unfortunately, his side-splittingly hilarious name is as witty as the film gets. We are subjected to a series of flashbacks, each more uninteresting than the last, in which Fowle's motive for the crime is revealed. He disliked Doris' penchant for telling poor jokes and cackling like a hyena every three seconds and tried to set her up with their similarly irritating and obnoxious lodger Frank Bateson so she would leave him and he could get some peace and quiet at long last. However, she instead kicked Bateson out for being too familiar and Fowle killed her because she would not leave him. If I were a member of the jury, I would have been inclined to vote "not guilty," frankly. This is a funny idea but the execution fails to deliver so much as a single laugh, unless you count laughs of derision. At one point while ruminating on his disastrous attempt to defend Fowle, Morgenhall reflects that he should have asked the jury if any of them longed for a quiet life without jokes of any sort. If they do, I would recommend this film to them. Personally, I abide by the maxim that a day without laughter is a day wasted so I won't be watching it again.
Overall, this isn't an absolutely terrible film but it is such a forgettable, insubstantial one that I found it difficult to even work up the energy to criticise it. When you never laugh (at least in a non-derisive manner...) or even smile once during a comedy, you know that you're in trouble. This is my one of least favourite films of the year so far, I'm afraid. I really, really hope that it will end up as one of my Bottom Five of 2016 or I'll be in even more trouble. It's kinda odd since I think of Attenborough as being my good luck charm as far as films are concerned. He directed and/or appeared in four films in my Top Five of 2015!