SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

JohnHowardReid Six points out of ten would be a generous rating for this disappointing movie from Tony Hancock and Peter Sellers. However, it will doubtless prove of interest to their admirers, so I include it here. The movie-making background will also strengthen the movie's appeal, while the bevy of Martian-costumed starlets is definitely another point in the film's favor. Actually, both Hancock and Sellers are wasted in minor roles that allow them few opportunities to unveil their comic talents. Another disappointment lies in the script. True, it has some plot ideas that certainly sound promising, but it fails to back them up with witty lines. Most of all, however, the movie does not have a director with the necessary skill and finesse. Time and again, promising ideas are stymied by both poor timing and an inept choice of camera angles. Sloppy film editing is also of no help. Actually, the movie could have been at least partially salvaged by sharp editing. Brian Reece's role, for instance, is of little consequence and could be severely trimmed to advantage, and so, regrettably, could Mr. Sellers' role, plus almost all of that tiresome by-play about rat traps. Fortunately, almost all of Hancock's part is still worth retaining, and we like the music score. Photography is rather flat, and despite a fairish budget, the film seems destined for the lower half of double bills.

trimmerb1234 This a fairly unremarkable film from the era except for the presence of the two (later) major stars - but well worth seeing for the jewel of a performance from Sellers. Both went on to make their names in comedy but this meeting on film was to be the one and only. Did each or either sense that the other was a potential rival? Their parts here are completely without interaction. Thereafter their paths diverged, Sellers became a bigger and bigger name in cinema and Hancock instead found success on television. Very interesting to compare and contrast the two performers and performances. Both had had success on radio playing a wide range of characters (voices). Sellers though excelled as comic character actor of chameleon like abilities as can be seen here but was never a comedian with his own comic personna. Hancock however was more comedian than character actor other than briefly burlesqueing a range of (much) earlier British film star performers. With the aid of comedy writers Alan Simpson and Ray Galton Hancock did go on to establish a comic personna - not apparently too far away from his real self - but in time became uncomfortable surrounded by a regular cast and finally - but most memorably and successfully - became the sole star of his show. The demons however did not stop, he became dissatisfied with the character and format but was tragically unable to find a successor. Hancock was an acknowledged genius but with an elusive ill-definable talent. Here he looks uncomfortable and uncertain unsupported by a hit and miss script. He was never to find his feet in films, perhaps the validation of a live audience had been essential to calm his insecurities.In contrast Seller's performance was as complete and brilliant as it ever was, unsurprisingly he became a film star in his own right within a few short years. Few could have failed to notice his talent here as half of a crafty fiddling duo of barrack orderlies (the other half the excellent comic character actor Bill Fraser). Their short scene together about 50 minutes in, with Brian Reece as the amorous Captain, is a jewel and as complete, self-assured and accomplished as anything Sellers subsequently did for Ealing, with this part of the script at least fitting like a glove.Some reviewers scoff at the threadbare nature of the supposedly big American Sci-Fi feature shot at the barracks but this is to misunderstand almost everything. Clearly the fictional production was a very very budget affair, actual manned space flight was then still 3 years away. And Britain itself in 1954 was threadbare - rationing had only finished 2 years earlier and the film markets and actual budgets were around 10% of their American equivalents. That being said, the biggest grandest pre-war science fiction film of all "The Shape of Things to Come", was British, born apparently of a highly advantageous tax arrangement. Again, oddly, American budget sci-fi and pot-boiler feature films of this era were very adept at looking far grander than their actual budgets.For fans, watch this film to see the earliest appearance of the mega-star Sellers was to become. Either sit through or skip through the mainly "chaotic and shouty" parts another reviewer nicely describes.*Sellers had made 3 earlier films, zany unsuccessful very low budget affairs with his then {radio) "Goonshow" comrades, remembered now more for their names than the merits of the films.

Ephraim Gadsby Who is Brian Reece? He's the star of 1954's "Orders Are Orders." He died in 1962. In this film he is ably supported by the often overlooked, but always invaluable, Raymond Huntley. So much for them."Orders are Orders" is about an army base is overrun by motion picture people making a cheap sci-fi flick about an invasion from outer space.Three show-biz legends have parts in the movie. First, Peter Sellers, just finding success on BBC radio's "The Goon Show." Then, Tony Hancock, who was soon to embark on his own radio series, and would go on to great fame on BBC television. Finally, Sid James, anchor of many "Carry On" movies.Hancock is the most disappointing. He bumbles around trying to act funny as a military band leader. He does have a few good moments, as when he tries to turn the march his band has been playing into a waltz.Sellers, on the other hand, is too restrained. Arguably the finest slapstick artist in movies since the silent era, Sellers' modus operandi is often to let characters and jokes develop slowly. In a 78-minute movie chock full of characters it seems unlikely a beginning movie actor in a supporting role would be allowed such latitude. His low-key performance can probably be chalked up to inexperience. It's too bad, because Sellers (still in his early, chunky period) can go high-octane.Sid James, perhaps because of his role as a flamboyant movie-maker, gives the film the charge it needs. He bustles through trying to steal every scene he's in, and mostly succeeding. From the moment he appears, every time he goes off-screen the movie starts to die.All three of these stars-to-be have significant if not above-title roles in "Orders are Orders." Their long-time fans may be disappointed, but it's worth seeing these young performers feeling their way to stardom that was waiting just around the corner.In all this, I have talked little about the film itself. There's not much to talk about. If it were not for the fact that three of its performers went on to major stardom, two on film and one on British television, this movie would probably never see the light of day. Fans of bad sci-fi might enjoy it for insight into the making of those pictures.Donald Pleasence and Eric Sykes have bit parts. Don't blink.

Spikeopath A run of the mill army barracks in Bilchester is overrun by a film company planning to make a Z grade science fiction movie. All seems to being going well as the pretty lady actors have the barracks in a tizzy and get the soldiers to play a part. That is until the Divisional Commander turns up for one of his inspections.Tho far from being at the top of the cast list, this sub-standard remake of a 1933 film of the same name is of interest to see the names Peter Sellers, Sid James & Tony Hancock in the same movie. However, the truth is is that it's a poor movie that is directed badly by David Paltenghi and the source material really doesn't transfer well to the screen. Based on a play written by Ian Hay in 1932, the makers seems to think that by weaving chaotic scenes with chaotic shouty dialogue that that is going to make for a mirthful movie. It doesn't.Released to DVD in 2007 as part of a collection called Long Lost Comedy Classics, this is easily the weakest of the set. Other titles in the collection are Miss Robin Hood, John & Julie, Make Me An Offer, The Love Match and the quite brilliant Time Gentlemen Please!. Orders Are Orders smacks of being a "set filler" and exists purely because of the names attached to it (Brian Reece, Margot Grahame & Raymond Huntley also star). 3/10 for Huntley's efforts and James' bizarre American accent