Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

writers_reign Not for the first time and almost certainly not the last I find that I have apparently been watching a different film to the majority of people who have posted comments here, all seemingly fully paid-up members of the Lindsay Anderson For President club. It's strange - to me at least - how the BFI seemingly is unable to function without a deity to worship and with Ken Loach on his last legs they'll be burning the midnight oil on Southbank and laying in a supply of white smoke. Anderson of course preceded Loach and that poseur who came up with a trilogy about Liverpool and then had the temerity to think he was up to rewriting Terence Rattigan's The Deep Blue Sea. So be it. This effort can't seem to decide if it's a poor man's I'm All Right, Jack or an up-market Hammer horror either way it's well worth missing.

t_atzmueller Throwing stones at people may catch peoples attention but it's almost certainly not going to make you friends or further your career; a shame that young, talented director Linday Anderson never realized this, and that "Britannia Hospital" virtually obliterated his livelihood.For many viewers – especially those English viewers being stereotypically depicted – the film was too vitriolic to be truly funny. Imagine an episode of "Carry On", directed by a misanthropist with an utter hate for the characters he's depicting. Indeed, apart from the coloured nurse, we do not get a single character that's amiable vaguely sympathetic. Corrupt, corruptible, greedy, self-indulgent, insane even, from the working-class buffoon to the cannibalistic African dictator – to the last person.Is the movie funny? Well, as said, you'll need a certain level of cynicism, nihilism and misanthropy – I dare say, you need to see things as they truly are in order to fully appreciate the humour. You'd have to believe in the general rottenness of society and humanity as such and still be capable to crack a laugh.If you're familiar with comic-books, you're likely familiar with the "Watchmen" comic-book, which has a character, the Comedian, state that: "Life is a joke – but it's not necessarily a funny joke." Get's 8 points from 10 from me.

vinciblestimps I just wanted to correct a few things said already.Lindsay Anderson has stated (often) that the Mick Travis in each of the films is a different one. He's using the name "Mick Travis" instead of saying "everyman" or "any old sod". So, complaining about what Mick did or didn't do vis a vis "the last film" is sort of pointless.The Royal in question here, right smack in the film is a Queen Mother impersonator and a great one at that. You're completely right that the Queen wouldn't stand for it... but that's why they put the half-mad happy dotty royal instead of her.. The Queen Mum would just go on and wait for her lunch.The film is eccentric in a great way... sure it has some blood spatter but I can tolerate that. =) Anyway, I wish we had gotten more shots of Malcolm in less clothing, but hey, I'll just have to live with it. Overall, a great film.

Aidan_Mclaren I mean really what was the point of this film in Lindsay Anderson's eyes? Britannia Hospital stands for Britain and the problems in it, including bowing down to corrupt dictators, allowing monstrous experiments, easily-swayed union-leaders, cradling the rich and just general madness.The film does not do as well as the last two as it seems rushed, you don't go as deep as you would like and the black humour and satire is unsubtle, obvious and boring quite frankly.Mick Travis is not given enough time as he should have been other than being turned into a Frankenstein creation and dying. I often thought why did he put him in? Probably to continue the sequels.The good points of the film include the acting and the cinematography, by far the best scenes were the ones including Graham Crowdan as the mad doctor.The ending may have prevented this being a bad movie in general, as it eloquently notes by a brain that when man tries to be God, the result can be indescribable. There is no solution to this problem we have as the brain says and thus sums up the whole trilogy's message and Lindsay Anderson's view on the human race.But other than that, he took a huge nose dive compared to his other two masterpieces and he really didn't need to feel that he had to make a sequel to "O Lucky Man!" as it said pretty much everything this did and better.