Nonureva Really Surprised!

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

silvamark-mcguinness I am appalled that anyone would write favourably about this film. Jeremy Irons is completely inappropriate for this role and his son is about as good an actor as Daniel Radcliffe in Harry Potter, i.e. not very good at all. The film completely and utterly destroys the entire essence of what Dahl captured so beautifully in his book: the timelessness of a simple, and authentic existence in an English post- war rural setting. I love Coltrane and Nail, yet they must have been desperate for work to have allowed themselves to be associated with such a low quality production. I feel morally obliged to become a film maker in order to redo this film in such a way as to do justice to the beauty of the book. Absolute garbage!

bob the moo It is 1955 and Danny and his father William live in a caravan beside their garage in the middle of an estate being bought up by Victor Hazell so that he can turn the woods into housing estates. When William refuses to sell his property to Hazell, the latter starts to put other pressures on William to get off the land and let him have it to complete his dream development – a conflict not helped by the fact that William poaches off Hazell's land. Hazell's plan is to weasel up to the local gentry with a great pheasant shoot – an event that he obviously needs lots of pheasants for, a fact that Danny and his father are keen to exploit to get their own back on the unscrupulous fellow.Although I have read the book as a child, it hasn't stuck in my mind the way that other, more imaginative Roald Dahl stories have. Watching the film decades later it is clear to me why I enjoyed it but also why it failed to make a lasting impression on me because, although it is a solid family film, it is far too slight and unremarkable to make for a great tale. The film does struggle with this and as a result it rarely engaged or interested me in the way it could have done but it did still manage to be an entertaining little family film. The story is quite ordinary and the rather ordinary delivery doesn't help; I suspect it is this that modern audiences will have problems with – certainly it isn't as smart and flashy as children raised on Toy Story et al will be used to. However despite that it is still quite an enjoyable little tale.The cast match the natural and wholesome feel of the film. The father/son chemistry between the two Irons is unsurprisingly easy and I quite enjoyed both their performances. Irons senior is gentle and enjoyable and, although his son is not a great actor, he isn't stretched here and fits the role well. Coltrane is enjoyable despite having a fairly simple role to play with and Cusack completes the family set-up with his performance. Nail, Jeffries and a few others all help to add a sense of fun to the film by virtue of their presence in the films.Overall this is a wholesome and quite old-fashioned family film that will provide a cosy evening in front of the telly despite being a bit too simple to please demanding children. It is all a bit slight and unspectacular but it is fun nonetheless and is worth seeing if you are in the mood and can cope with the rather coying touch of old fashioned sentiment that runs through it.

taita A charming movie set in rural England after the war. Widowed Father Jeremy Irons is bringing up his son in a caravan on a small piece of land where he also runs his own garage. Unfortunately this small piece of land is crucial to the plans of the local, much disliked, Nouveau Riche squire played by Robbie Coltrane. A real smarmy cove. He wants their land and will call in all favours to get rid of them. He is also currying up to the local gentry with a pheasant shoot, but what if there were no pheasants for anyone to shoot?. What they need is a champion pheasant catcher..This is another winner from Roald Dahl the peerless childrens writer. Real-life father and son Jeremy and Samuel Irons play the leads in this with Grandad Cusack as the local doctor. Just a bit of a whimsical romp for the two elder actors whereas young Samuel had to put a noticable effort into it. All the same it is a thoroughly heartwarming story. There are quite a few well known faces in it, Jean Marsh doing a caricature of a spinsterish do gooder, Michael Hordern as a slightly dotty Lord, Jimmy Nail as a disgruntled gamekeeper, and Lionel Jeffries as the tippling but exceedingly fair Headmaster. It's almost as if they thought "What shall we do this summer? I know lets do a movie together." They are all perfectly natural and comfortable. A joy to watch.Watch it with your children you wont regret it.

power_br A guy who I know at college is in this film. Step forward, Sam Irons! I'm not going to eulogise him, though. His performance is quite wooden, unlike the rest of the cast: Cyril Cusack and Jeremy Irons were on great form for this movie, but the best thing about it it was Robbie Coltrane. Once a scene -stealer, always a scene stealer! So, I'm sorry all you Sam Irons fans! This one belongs to Robbie Coltrane. Jeremy Irons gives a good enough performance as Danny's dad: to an actor of his caliber, such a part is easy. What keeps the whole thing moving is the plot: the book was classic Dahl stuff, and the movie remains faithful. All in all, it is rather enjoyable, if a little dull. If only Haley Joel Osment could have played Danny! It wasn't to be....