Carry On Columbus (1992)

The 'Carry Ons' had been wound up - to very little fanfare - nearly fifteen years before Carry On Columbus was released back in 1992. I was in high school then and I remember it vaguely; along with most contemporary audiences at the time, I certainly made no effort to actually watch a Carry On film in the cinema. Followng a dismal run Carry On Columbus soon faded at the box office , and it's only thanks to ITV 4 that I've gotten the chance to occasionally watch it over recent years.The storyline - a take on Christopher Columbus and The New World, in case you missed the hint - is stale and lifeless. Too many of the performances are forced, and the timing and delivery - always essentially in a Carry On film - just isn't there; if the 'magic' that existed between James, Jacques, Butterworth, Connor, Williams, Windsor, et al (despite whatever else was going on behind the scenes) was spent by 'Emmannuelle' then it was unlikely it was going to be rekindled in the early Nineties - particularly with a group of actors and comedians from a very different background. This was at the heart of Columbus's failure - the Alternative Comedian of the 1980s was extremely critical (often with good justification) of their 'traditional', 'music hall' or 'old fashioned' predecessors; and when they got their own chance on the silver screen their big shot was yet another Carry On film...it was no wonder they struggled to adapt to the 'seaside postcard' style they'd spent nearly a decade disparaging. By trying to reinvent a sanitised version, and underestimating or misunderstanding the job in hand, the Alternatives surgically removed the essence of what made the series such a success in the first place - even if realities were a bit more hit and miss than the myth suggests. Peter Rogers takes his share of blame as well - if the same formula was well passed its sell by date in 1978 (or 1976 if count 'Dick' as the last decent entry) did he really expect a different result in 1992?With one or two exemptions (notably Jim Dale and Sara Crowe) most of the cast look all at sea here - and not in the way Colombus would have liked. It says much about low expectations that people can say this is better than the last two or three entries is a plus point - I'd say it was a necessity! Not the worst but it's near the bottom of the league, and one for the completionists only.

I have seen all of the Carry on Films and I remember only not enjoying a couple of them. That would be Columbus & Emmanuelle. I know a lot of people hated England as well. I liked that one. After Sid James left, there was something missing. This movie probably should have not been made. These films worked in the 50's, 60's & part of the 70's. The film looks like a cheap production. It's like something you would see on TV. Jim Dale plays Christopher Columbus and he goes out exploring and there are people out to stop him. Before the voyage starts we have a couple of stupid and wrong scenes. We see a bunch of Christians dressed as Klansman in black Klan outfits discussing how to get rid of Jewish people. That scene is stupid, wrong and unfunny. There is also a scene where Columbus recruits prisoners for his voyage and there is gate keeper that is gay. What a wimp. Gay characters are not funny. He is a total sissy. There is one good scene early on as Sara Crowe who plays Fatima. She does a nice dance in a harem outfit for her boss, the Sultan. She is assigned to sabotage the mission of Columbus. She gets on board dressed as a man. She and other try and try to stop his voyage. Fatima falls for Chris and she tells him of the plan to mutiny. They are ready to hang him when they spot land. They decide to move forward. They go a shore and meet some people that show them the cave that has treasure. Before they enter Fatima strips down to her harem outfit. Very nice! They find a small treasure and trick the King and Queen from keeping it. Chris ends up getting it on with Fatima in the final scene.There is not a lot of good things to say about this film. There are also a few bare butts that were not needed. I think giving this film a 4/10 is a gift.

I know its not up to the standard of alot of the older films, but its miles ahead of Emmanuelle and England im my opinion. It also has some VERY funny lines, the best ever in any Carry On film in fact: "Now Columbus. Father Torquemada has read your document" "But its in Hebrew" "Yes, well he had a Jewish grandmother didn't he?" "At the seminary I attended it was compulsory" "What you mean they all had Jewish grandmothers?" Absolutely the best line in any Carry On film! Along with other good ones like: "In gods name... Make it go!" "Fine foods. Exotic women. Gay companions" Yeah its not as good as the others and doesn't feel part of the series with so little of the original stars involved, but its good enough in parts and I hear tell that they are now making another film 'Carry On London' - bring it on!

The original Carry On series has a certain kitsch charm. They were smutty, low budget attempts to appeal to the masses, which broadly succeeded in putting a smile on the nation's face. Great casts of talented comic actors such as Sid James, Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey and Barbara Windsor gave their all to leave a superb record of the humour of the time. Fourteen years after the original series drew to a close, largely because it was no longer relevant to the country, someone got the bright idea to revive the tradition. I can almost hear the smug conversations as the likes of Julian Clary and Rik Mayall decided to undertake what they thought would be a simple project. How miserably they failed. It is an execrable, ill conceived and poorly executed film, the only purpose of which is to illustrate the quality of the originals.We often bemoan the demise of the British film industry, yet we seem to be almost incapable of turning out any decent films with the resources we have.