I'm a Benny Hill fan so I liked it. If you're not a fan, well, I'm not sure if you'd like it or not. It's not his best work, he hadn't established all of his trademark smirks and faces yet, but it's well worth watching.
3 Reviews
Woefully mistimed mean-spirited attempt at silent comedy
wilvram22 August 2020
I am amazed to see the relatively high ratings for this so far. Having always been a fan of Benny Hill, who has seen most of his existing recorded material, I would rate this as about the weakest project he was associated with, far worse even than those tired self-indulgent shows toward the end of his career.
Benny's severest critics would concede that there was hardly any malice in his comedy, but in this his character is charmless and aggressive throughout and the content relentlessly mean-spirited and spiteful. It's a rare case of him actually living up to his otherwise utterly unfair caricature as a crude sexist as his boorish waiter gropes and upsets women. There is certainly plenty of comic potential in the notion of two uncouth servants causing mayhem at a middle-class dinner party, which makes it all the more disappointing that Benny's usual superlative comic timing is frustratingly absent. Old standbys, like the clumsy ruin of the meal and damage to the billiard table, go by to no effect due to a complete failure to construct them properly. Benny should have paid more attention to some of his old heroes, not least Laurel and Hardy who exemplified how this kind of comedy should be played. The failure of this and Eddie In August, which was made soon after and was slightly better, put paid to any notions Hill had of becoming a director, but enabled him to take his TV show to new heights.
Benny's severest critics would concede that there was hardly any malice in his comedy, but in this his character is charmless and aggressive throughout and the content relentlessly mean-spirited and spiteful. It's a rare case of him actually living up to his otherwise utterly unfair caricature as a crude sexist as his boorish waiter gropes and upsets women. There is certainly plenty of comic potential in the notion of two uncouth servants causing mayhem at a middle-class dinner party, which makes it all the more disappointing that Benny's usual superlative comic timing is frustratingly absent. Old standbys, like the clumsy ruin of the meal and damage to the billiard table, go by to no effect due to a complete failure to construct them properly. Benny should have paid more attention to some of his old heroes, not least Laurel and Hardy who exemplified how this kind of comedy should be played. The failure of this and Eddie In August, which was made soon after and was slightly better, put paid to any notions Hill had of becoming a director, but enabled him to take his TV show to new heights.
Very good, and very different from Hill's TV show
Tryavna4 December 2005
This 30-minute film marked Benny Hill's last attempt to break onto the big screen. Why he thought a short film would be his ticket is beyond me. Except for special festivals, short films haven't received much distribution or attention since the 1940s. This one apparently sat on the shelf for two years until Paramount finally picked it up. (Although it was released in 1971, the copyright clearly says 1969.) That's a shame because I'd rank it as one of Hill's finest efforts. The plot can be summed up quickly: Hill plays a caterer who gets drunk on the job and proceeds to make a disaster of a middle class couple's dinner party.
"The Waiters" is an homage to silent film comedians like Chaplin and Keaton. Although there are sound effects, music, and even one or two murmurs from the actors, the film contains no dialog. Hill and his actors, including a few familiar faces from his TV show, do a pretty good job of recapturing this type of comedy. Even the conflict between the working class waiters and the middle class diners, which operates as an undercurrent, seems in keeping with the homage. (Hill is obviously critical of the "high-falutin" airs of the middle class diners who hire temporary servants just as Chaplin was critical of ostentatious displays of wealth.) But this subtext isn't important because the comedy works by itself. This is a very funny film! By the way, if you only know Hill's comedy through "The Benny Hill Show," you're in for a pleasant surprise. Since the entire 30 minutes is dedicated to one story, we actually get a full story arc rather than a series of episodic gags. Also, because there's no dialog (which I've always felt was Hill's greatest weakness as a comedian), we don't get the endless parade of double entendres that we do in his later TV shows. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and admit that I like this short film better than "The Benny Hill Show." Like I said earlier, I think it's one of his best achievements.
"The Waiters" is available as an extra on Anchor Bay's 2003 DVD release of "Who Done It?" (which was Hill's only feature film in the starring role). In my opinion, "The Waiters" is far superior to "Who Done It?" -- even though "Who Done It?" was produced at legendary Ealing Studios. (By 1956, when "Who Done It?" was released, Ealing was definitely in decline.) I'm not sure that it's worth buying the DVD just for "The Waiters," but it's definitely worth a rental.
"The Waiters" is an homage to silent film comedians like Chaplin and Keaton. Although there are sound effects, music, and even one or two murmurs from the actors, the film contains no dialog. Hill and his actors, including a few familiar faces from his TV show, do a pretty good job of recapturing this type of comedy. Even the conflict between the working class waiters and the middle class diners, which operates as an undercurrent, seems in keeping with the homage. (Hill is obviously critical of the "high-falutin" airs of the middle class diners who hire temporary servants just as Chaplin was critical of ostentatious displays of wealth.) But this subtext isn't important because the comedy works by itself. This is a very funny film! By the way, if you only know Hill's comedy through "The Benny Hill Show," you're in for a pleasant surprise. Since the entire 30 minutes is dedicated to one story, we actually get a full story arc rather than a series of episodic gags. Also, because there's no dialog (which I've always felt was Hill's greatest weakness as a comedian), we don't get the endless parade of double entendres that we do in his later TV shows. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and admit that I like this short film better than "The Benny Hill Show." Like I said earlier, I think it's one of his best achievements.
"The Waiters" is available as an extra on Anchor Bay's 2003 DVD release of "Who Done It?" (which was Hill's only feature film in the starring role). In my opinion, "The Waiters" is far superior to "Who Done It?" -- even though "Who Done It?" was produced at legendary Ealing Studios. (By 1956, when "Who Done It?" was released, Ealing was definitely in decline.) I'm not sure that it's worth buying the DVD just for "The Waiters," but it's definitely worth a rental.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
