La loca pandilla de Chris Columbus

The 'Carry Ons' had been wound up - to very little fanfare - nearly fifteen years before Carry On Columbus was released back in 1992. I was in high school then and I remember it vaguely; along with most contemporary audiences at the time, I certainly made no effort to actually watch a Carry On film in the cinema. Followng a dismal run Carry On Columbus soon faded at the box office , and it's only thanks to ITV 4 that I've gotten the chance to occasionally watch it over recent years.

The storyline - a take on Christopher Columbus and The New World, in case you missed the hint - is stale and lifeless. Too many of the performances are forced, and the timing and delivery - always essentially in a Carry On film - just isn't there; if the 'magic' that existed between James, Jacques, Butterworth, Connor, Williams, Windsor, et al (despite whatever else was going on behind the scenes) was spent by 'Emmannuelle' then it was unlikely it was going to be rekindled in the early Nineties - particularly with a group of actors and comedians from a very different background.

This was at the heart of Columbus's failure - the Alternative Comedian of the 1980s was extremely critical (often with good justification) of their 'traditional', 'music hall' or 'old fashioned' predecessors; and when they got their own chance on the silver screen their big shot was yet another Carry On film...it was no wonder they struggled to adapt to the 'seaside postcard' style they'd spent nearly a decade disparaging. By trying to reinvent a sanitised version, and underestimating or misunderstanding the job in hand, the Alternatives surgically removed the essence of what made the series such a success in the first place - even if realities were a bit more hit and miss than the myth suggests. Peter Rogers takes his share of blame as well - if the same formula was well passed its sell by date in 1978 (or 1976 if count 'Dick' as the last decent entry) did he really expect a different result in 1992?

With one or two exemptions (notably Jim Dale and Sara Crowe) most of the cast look all at sea here - and not in the way Colombus would have liked. It says much about low expectations that people can say this is better than the last two or three entries is a plus point - I'd say it was a necessity! Not the worst but it's near the bottom of the league, and one for the completionists only.

Occasionally you will watch a film in which you struggle to find any redeeming qualities. Carry On Columbus is such a film. It wasn't so much that the humour was dated, in 1992 I can still laugh at 95% of the Carry Ons, it was so badly executed and the casting was so misplaced. If your a Carry On fan it is nice to see some of the originals still in 1992 around to give it a go. Jim Dale, Jack Douglas. June Whitfield, Leslie Philips , Bernard Cribbins, Jon Pertwee andPeter Gilmore being the remnants of this British institution. The rest of the cast are the then cream of TVs alternative comedy, what a waste. 2/10.

This film is the biggest pile of doosh, it's been my misfortune to endure, I love the carry on films, and because I do, I have problems even accepting this pityful movies exsistence.

Barbara Windsor and Joan Sims did the wise thing and refused to have anything to do with this debarcle. To include so called modern comics such as Rik Mayell, Alexi Sayle etc is an insult to the Carry on name.

A movie HAS to be bad if the normally grotesque Julian Clarey, gives me the only chuckle of the film. The only 'true' Carry on regular in this movie was Jim Dale (and Peter Gilmore at a push). June Whitfield, Leslie Phillips, Jack Douglas & Bernard Cribbins, all made only a handful of appearances in the series, and do themselves no favours appearing in this arsefest. Lets put this into perspective.

Sid James is Dead, Kenneth Williams is Dead, Kenneth Connor is Dead, Charles Hawtrey is Dead, Hattie Jacques is Dead, Peter Butterworth is Dead, Joan Sims is Dead, Barbara Windsor is Dead, Bernard Bresslaw is Dead.

These people WERE the Carry on movies, it was their magic and their comedic timing and delivery that made these films charming. Not because they were 'Carry on Films' but because THEY were in them, and it is the rapport they had as a working team, that made that 'Carry On' magic. This film was nothing more than ghostriding.

And if this movie wasn't damaging enough to the 'Carry On' name, then I'm sure you'll all be sickened to hear that they're planning to make another. I hope more intelligent heads prevail and we are spared such an indignity.

Absolutely terrible and embarrassing. Cheap looking and shameful. How did this atrocity ever see the light of day? What a disgrace to the Carry On name.

Don't get me wrong, I really like the Carry On franchise, but along with England and Emmanuelle, this movie is down there with the worst of them. Sorry I didn't like it, in fact I thought it was woeful. There was such a lot wrong with it, and not much good with it. The story is incoherent, the dialogue ranges to bad to horrendous, the gags are poor, the pacing is all over the place, the direction is non-existent the sets and costumes are somewhat cheap and the acting was poor. Leslie Phillips and June Whitfield are wasted, Bernard Cribbins is unusually bland and Julian Clary(???) only adds to the problem in an excruciatingly embarrassing turn as Don Juan Diego. In fact, the only redeeming quality is Jim Dale, who actually tries to do something with his role. Overall, dreadful and one of the worst. 1/10 Bethany Cox