Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator
Honestly, it depends on how much patience you have for 1930s British farce. If you’re in the mood for something light, noisy, and a bit ridiculous, you’ll probably find some charm here. If you’re looking for high-concept storytelling, skip it. It’s a movie that knows exactly what it is, even if it runs out of steam before the finish line.
The premise is simple enough. Our lead gets a pile of money, but only if he keeps his trap shut for thirty days. It’s a classic setup for a comedy, but the execution is basically just watching people try to annoy a guy until he snaps.
Watching Monty Banks try to keep his cool while his relatives invade his space is... something. The women are relentless. It’s almost impressive how quickly they turn from family into professional saboteurs. They’re basically trying to win a game of 'Don't Laugh' or 'Don't Speak' at a very high stakes level.
There’s a specific scene where they start testing his resolve with some really petty nonsense. It goes on a bit long. You can tell the actors were having fun, but the pacing starts to feel a little sluggish right in the middle. It’s like they were running out of ways to make him talk and just decided to throw more furniture at the problem.
It’s not as sharp as some of the other stuff from that era, like The Manxman, but it isn't trying to be. It’s just a weird, little relic. You might find yourself checking your watch, or you might find yourself laughing at the sheer absurdity of a man trying to cook pasta while being harassed by his aunts.
It’s a bit like watching a long-form sketch comedy that lost its script halfway through. There's something honest about how disorganized the whole thing feels by the end. It doesn't overreach, which is probably why it stays watchable.
Don't look for deep meaning. Just enjoy the headache. 🍝

Year
1935
IMDb Rating
—

Editorial
Deciphering the legacy of transgressive cult cinema.
Community
Log in to comment.