Skip to main content

Never underestimate the wiles of a crooked European state.

The Mouse on the Moon
(1963)

(SPOILERS) Amiable sequel to an amiably underpowered original. And that, despite the presence of frequent powerhouse Peter Sellers in three roles. This time, he’s conspicuously absent and replaced actually or effectively by Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody and Bernard Cribbins. All of whom are absolutely funny, but the real pep that makes The Mouse on the Moon an improvement on The Mouse that Roared is a frequently sharp-ish Michael Pertwee screenplay and a more energetic approach from director Richard Lester (making his feature debut-ish, if you choose to discount jazz festival performer parade It’s Trad, Dad!)

Bracewell: We are the joint victims of a monstrous hoax.

The Mouse on the Moon is based on Leonard Wibberley’s third Grand Fenwick novel, published in 1962, so no time was wasted getting this one into production; United Artists conspicuously avoiding snapping up 1958 prequel Beware of the Mouse (set in the Middle Ages, so mudflood does not exist in this dojo). As before, Prime Minister Rupert Mountjoy (Moody filling the role vacated by Sellers) has a scheme for milking cash for his strapped state from a superpower. There’s no reference to the loot they received last time, and yet again Gran Fenwick’s national export is encountering hiccups. Explosive ones. Imports have been banned by the US, the UK, and the UN (following an explosion of a case of wine in their canteen). His crafty double think applies itself to the notion that the US is “always talking about international co-operation in space”, yet wouldn’t offer a penny of aid if any other country had any actual chance of sending a rocket up there; knowing Grand Fenwick hasn’t a chance of succeeding, they are sure to help fund their research, to the tune of $500k.

Bracewell: At Canaveral, we have elevators for this.
Professor Koknitz: Ah yes, but you have so many postponements. Up, down. Up, down. We go up in one.

American delegate Bracewell (John Phillips) concludes Mountjoy’s ulterior motives exactly (“Plumbing for the castle, probably”) and offers Fenwick $1m. The USSR makes its own generosity known in retaliation, providing a rocket designed to send a dog up, sans engine. Whether Wibberley swallowed the space race as legitimate – and many did not, doubting not only the authenticity of Sputnik’s feats, but also the Moon landings a decade plus later, so let’s not pretend everyone was wowed into blithe gullibility – he does a fine job of persuading you he is entirely cynical about the heightened endeavour in all respects. Soviet and US efforts are portrayed as mutually inept until their hands are forced, with acid remarks about their needing elevators due to all the postponements (something The Right Stuff is good at portraying). Notably, both countries’ heads of rocket engineering are Seig-Heiling Nazis (pretty much spot on), such that you wonder why anyone thought NASA was remotely legitimate in the first place.

Professor Koknitz: We do not reach Mach 2… We do not reach Escape Velocity… Power and not speed is important

The international spotlight cast on Fenwick means they have to feign sending up their rocket, albeit Rupert Mountjoy doesn’t realise his son Vincent (Bernard Cribbins) and Professor Kokintz (the returning David Kosoff) really do intend to go. Of course, everything about Fenwick’s approach is such overtly absurd fantasy that it makes the “real” efforts to get there appear authentic and feasible only by dint of contrast. So Kokintz dazzles with his own science, every bit as legitimate as that of the recognised professionals (he has, after all, got similar form, having invented his own fake superweapon that outdoes their nukes). His trip will take three weeks (“I regenerate air by catalytic disassociation”), and his fuel comes from the explosive properties of Fenwick wine (it contains Pinotium 64, an astonishing radioactive element that lends itself to a formula for stabilising nuclear power). Space food is out. They will have “Fresh eggs on the way up and roast chicken on the way down”.

Vincent Mountjoy: Astronaut. It’s all I’ve dreamed about since they sent up Sputnik 1.

When they finally take off, their competitors swiftly follow. Alas, the latter arrive too late and fail to lift off again (so needing a lift back; eerily prescient, if you take any stock in the idea that the lunar lander did what it’s claimed to have done). The depiction of space travel in The Mouse on the Moon is at least as convincing as the “real” thing. The lunar surface too. In this movie’s the version of the space race, the US is actually reasonably sensible, intent on preserving life rather than sanctioning needless endangerment. The General asserts that, in order to safeguard American boys, he would delay the mission for a thousand years, something his Nazi scientist Von Neidel (John Bluthal) vocally disagrees with. A headline earlier announces “US launches robot at Moon to report on the lunar surface”, so even a lark like The Mouse on the Moon suggests contingencies the actual space force failed to investigate. Of course, the notion that their $20bn budget blackhole may be exactly that isn’t entirely ignored (“The American tax payer has always been deceived. It is his birth right” comments cunning Rupert to his son, who objects to rocket funds being used for the castle plumbing system).

Professor Koknitz: Good evening, gentlemen. Grand Fenwick welcomes you to its Moon.
Vincent Mountjoy: Could I see your passports and vaccination certificates, please.

The Mouse on the Moon also has the drop on current concerns, such as all that (alleged) space flotsam floating around up there (you know, the stuff imminently in danger of landing on us, or of perforating the delicate hulls of space stations, but which never does): “Wherever civilisation goes, garbage is sure to follow” observes Koknitz of all the junk that has landed with them. It’s a nice touch too that, as soon as the Americans and Soviets touch down, the Fenwickians are demanding passports and “vaccination certificates”.

Vincent Mountjoy: Cynthia, will you marry me?
Cynthia: Yes, when you’ve been to the Moon and back.

Pertwee takes a gently scattershot approach with his satire, Fenwick quietly absorbing the decadent values of the more established western forces. Rupert’s niece Cynthia (June Ritchie) is an active protestor against the state on any given subject (“I don’t know. But whatever it is, we’ll fight it”). There also some amusing placards, with “Keep Fenwick off the Moon” followed by “And Out of the Common Market”. Cribbins attempts some slapstick mugging as he tries to pass himself off as a beatnik. Somehow, this is winning to Cynthia.

Rupert Mountjoy: Your great, great grandfather became prime minister at the age of six!
Vincent Mountjoy: Yes, but he was mad!
Rupert Mountjoy: Mad maybe, but one of our greatest prime ministers.

It’s been noted that Cribbins is playing Moody’s son despite the latter being only four years older. You never question this, though. Moody’s on fine form, suggesting a less diabolical Roger Delgado. Cribbins is good value too, if delivering the familiar hapless inept also seen in the likes of You Must Be Joking! and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. Notably, when he first returns from boarding school in England, dad despairs of his lost potential (he had all the makings of a great politician “As a child, he was fantastically sly and dishonest”) and opines to Cynthia that he should “never have sent him to British public school” (implying it may have turned Vincent a bit nancy).

Vincent Mountjoy: Who do you spy for? The Russians?
Maurice Spender: I say, steady!

Terry-Thomas pops up for a brief section as British spy Maurice Spender, tasked with determining the authenticity of the Fenwick rocket project and duly disarmed by the complete lack of security. T-T is offered a few decent lines and allowed to deliver a smattering of ingratiating cowardice, but this isn’t one of his vintage parts. Having seen the rocket decked out with showerheads and its evident application for castle heating, he reports back in the scoffing affirmative when John Le Mesurier asks “Absolutely no question of genuine space research, then?

Frankie Howerd: Three weeks? Oh dear! I’ll have to make other arrangements.

There’s a nice dig too at British bereft-ness post Empire, as the news report on the Fenwick Moon mission notes the contributions of the US (money) and Soviet Union (rocket) before proudly advising that the watch worn by Vincent is of British design. Also notable in small roles are Clive Dunn as a bandleader (becoming most distraught at the need to switch between multiple national anthems), Peter Sallis and John Lloyd. Frankie Howerd – as himself – marches on looking for the loo, only to be old it will be another three weeks before he can use it.

Rupert Mountjoy: Why should I be pleased about the blasted bobolinks?

I had in mind that we actually got to see the Bobolinks in The Mouse on the Moon. Further still, I was under the illusion they were a made-up bird, owing to their very silly name. Maurice Binder returns for the animated title sequence while regular Ray Harryhausen’s DP Wilkie Cooper – he also lensed the same year’s Jason and the Argonauts – keeps things colourful. The Mouse on the Moon is a post-Ealing Brit pic probably best suited to a younger audience, despite savouring some sharp targets. It makes for a better kids’ satire, though, than its predecessor does an adult one.




Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

My hands hurt from galloping.

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) (SPOILERS) Say what you like about the 2016 reboot, at least it wasn’t labouring under the illusion it was an Amblin movie. Ghostbusters 3.5 features the odd laugh, but it isn’t funny, and it most definitely isn’t scary. It is, however, shamelessly nostalgic for, and reverential towards, the original(s), which appears to have granted it a free pass in fan circles. It didn’t deserve one.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

I’ve heard the dancing’s amazing, but the music sucks.

Tick, Tick… Boom! (2021) (SPOILERS) At one point in Tick, Tick… Boom! – which really ought to have been the title of an early ’90s Steven Seagal vehicle – Andrew Garfield’s Jonathan Larson is given some sage advice on how to find success in his chosen field: “ On the next, maybe try writing about what you know ”. Unfortunately, the very autobiographical, very-meta result – I’m only surprised the musical doesn’t end with Larson finishing writing this musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical, in which he is finishing writing his musical… – takes that acutely literally.

Out of my way, you lubberly oaf, or I’ll slit your gullet and shove it down your gizzard!

The Princess and the Pirate (1944) (SPOILERS) As I suggested when revisiting The Lemon Drop Kid , you’re unlikely to find many confessing to liking Bob Hope movies these days. Even Chevy Chase gets higher approval ratings. If asked to attest to the excruciating stand-up comedy Hope, the presenter and host, I doubt even diehards would proffer an endorsement. Probably even fewer would admit to having a hankering for Hope, were they aware of, or further still gave credence to, alleged MKUltra activities. But the movie comedy Hope, the fourth-wall breaking, Road -travelling quipster-coward of (loosely) 1939-1952? That Hope’s a funny guy, mostly, and many of his movies during that period are hugely inventive, creative comedies that are too easily dismissed under the “Bob Hope sucks” banner. The Princess and the Pirate is one of them.

Who gave you the crusade franchise? Tell me that.

The Star Chamber (1983) (SPOILERS) Peter Hyams’ conspiracy thriller might simply have offered sauce too weak to satisfy, reining in the vast machinations of an all-powerful hidden government found commonly during ’70s fare and substituting it with a more ’80s brand that failed to include that decade’s requisite facile resolution. There’s a good enough idea here – instead of Charles Bronson, it’s the upper echelons of the legal system resorting to vigilante justice – but The Star Chamber suffers from a failure of nerve, repenting its premise just as it’s about to dig into the ramifications.

You’re going to make me drop a donkey.

Encanto (2021) (SPOILERS) By my estimation, Disney brand pictures are currently edging ahead of the Pixars. Not that there’s a whole lot in it, since neither have been at full wattage for a few years now. Raya and the Last Dragon and now Encanto are collectively just about superior to Soul and Luca . Generally, the animation arm’s attempts to take in as much cultural representation as they possibly can, to make up for their historic lack of woke quotas, has – ironically – had the effect of homogenising the product to whole new levels. So here we have Colombia, renowned the world over for the US’s benign intervention in their region, not to mention providing the CIA with subsistence income, beneficently showered with gifts from the US’s greatest artistic benefactor.