I guess this film has not aged well ...

Rating: 4/10 (17 October 2005)

I was disappointed by the quality of this movie, having been encouraged to rent it out by its high IMDb rating. It felt like a B movie: pretty much everything was weak. The plot was unexciting, the timing of the "gags" was awful, the set was ludicrous, the editing was substandard, the lighting was quaint, the lead actress lacked appeal, the lead actor - what's with that little moustache?, and the comedians weren't (with one honourable exception) funny. The honourable exception was the clergyman as played by Peter Cook. We miss you, Peter. But what on earth were you doing in this morass of mediocrity?!
For the first twenty minutes I kept thinking that it would get better to justify its rating. Not a chance. So how did it get into the IMDb top 250? Come on guys, let me into the secret here. It can't be a "cult" thing, you could go to any bad movie and laugh at how bad it is. So is everyone marking it based on some hazy recollection from childhood? Have you actually WATCHED it recently? If this movie came out today, it would tank at the box office and struggle to get above 5.0 on IMDb.