Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

redcrippler There are many things about this movie which had me both yelling at the screen and at those that were watching the movie with me. The scenes that use fire look so bad that they should have been left out completely, especially since they were not originally in the book. The scenes from the renaissance period added nothing at all to the movie yet take up about a third of the film. Christie Malry's mother and childhood friend are characters that either should not have been shown or should have actually been used to move the plot along. In closing this was a movie that barely seemed to have a focus and had too many characters and scenes that had no business being in the movie, try to avoid watching it.

Nicholas Jones So you're a fan of B. S. Johnson's novel 'Christie Malry's Own Double-Entry', you admire his experimentation and playfulness with the literary form, you enjoy the black humour and anti-capitalist message, and, most importantly, the manner in which Johnson never allows his reader to forget that this is a work of fiction, using such devices as Christie himself talking directly to the author?Then on no account watch this film.You'll spend the whole time shouting at the screen wondering how they could have missed the point so comprehensively. In an interview on the DVD the screenwriter claims to have stayed faithful to the book, which is laughable. I won't go into too much detail, but here's two key point for you to think about:1) The biggest debit recorded by Christie is that socialism has not been given a chance. This is essentially the political message of the novel, but not mentioned in the film.2) In the film, Christie en-route to Westminster when his own bomb destroys the bus he is riding on. The implication is that he causes his own downfall, is responsible for his own death. In the book, he dies from cancer, randomly. So the complexity and open-endedness of the book (Johnson refuses to tell us if he destroys parliament or not) is lost is the cause of a nice understandable ending that will not tax the brains of the audience. All in all, enormously disappointing. B. S. Johnson subversively refuses to to describe Christie, saying we must create him in our own way (like God). So I suppose all sorts of interpretations are acceptable, but this is a very, very poor one.Luke Haines's soundtrack is excellent, though.

glynyfaron With a limited budget and resources, Paul Tickell has done a fantastic job of bringing Johnson's unique perspective to the screen. Nick Moran does well at playing a character that is almost a cipher but has a darkness within him that no-one detects until it's far too late. References to Princess Diana and attacks on Iraq bring the tale right up to date and, frustrating as it was, I can see why this was pulled from its original mid-September release date.Luke Haines is a God.

makisathens I see it in a festival in Athens.Brilliant English film!Hard to explain!What can i say??You M-U-S-T see this film!I can't write very good English,so i can't write a lot of the plot of the film.Go see it and you will see something you will remember a long time!