Lady Godiva

To say that this is the worst film ever is probably the safest statement that I've made in my life. Where does it all go wrong? It's hard to know where to start but I guess that the beginning is a good place; the film opens with a naff historical reenactment of the Godiva legend which adds nothing to the film that follows but at least this part is reasonably well shot unlike the rest of this movie. Thereafter the film jolts about like an episode of Hollyoaks with simply the worst script and flimsiest characterisation of anything ever seen on screen. It is truly that awful! The story, which might have started as something worth telling, is ruined by appalling direction which jolts around unfathomably with characters acting out of character and for cheap laughs to the extent that after half an hour the amateurish crassness of the whole production isn't even funny any more. At several points I asked myself how the film could get worse only to find that the next scene eloquently answered my question. The saddest part is that I watched this film hoping to like it and believe that someone could fight the corporate film making machine from the outside. This however is an embarrassment to independent film makers everywhere, as though a bunch of drunk sixth formers had run amok with a camera. Nobody associated with this film apart from Phoebe Thomas emerges with any credit. Sorry.

OK, I'm not one for cheap shots or gratuitous personal attacks BUT I will call it how I see it: Lady Godiva is a disaster and a depressing waste of resources. It may not be the worst film ever made, but it's certainly the worst British romantic comedy ever made, beating the hateful Love Actually into a distant second place - which I guess is some kind of achievement.

So how did this happen? Firstly, the director had VERY little experience and apparently little to no interest in the 90-degree rule or continuity in general. Godiva is a mess of weird blocking and odd cuts throughout. And not in a good way. The editing feels like a salvage job which doesn't work. Secondly, and despite her inexperience, I believe the director was very badly served by some of her crew. £1.4 million in the right hands can go a LONG way, and it seems clear that some of the people involved in Godiva were not giving of their best.

Godiva feels cheap - the school and "art factory" with suspiciously few kids, the Prince William lookalike and Queen cover version on the soundtrack, the rubbish attempt at CNN-style graphics.

One thing director Vicky Jewson can fully take the blame for is Godiva's pervasive upper- class snobbery. It's there in the fawning over Prince William (woodenly played by a lookalike who unlike the real Wills isn't going bald). The snobbery is also present in the extraordinary character of Michael's 'unsuitable' girlfriend Veronica, a middle class woman who drinks martini instead of sherry and thinks that letting a horse run around the kitchen is "unhygenic" (she's got a point). Tellingly, Michael (Matthew Chambers) twice disparages Jemima's Mini. The Mini factory in Oxford has been a fixture of Oxford's economy for years, but this fact is either unknown to Jewson (likely) or ignored by her as she fetishises more upper class aspects of the city.

Over and above these flaws however is the damning fact that Lady Godiva is meaningless and unfunny from start to finish. Scenes start and finish at random points, dialogue is either completely inconsequential or totally explanatory.

Worst scene: The business meeting. Somehow, thorough a "hilarious" sequence of accidents, Michael and his business partner are shirtless when 2 Japanese businessmen enter. The businessmen, having no understanding of western culture or basic common sense then proceed to strip off. Oh, the hilarity! Then - get this! -Michael's secretary takes her blouse off! And the Japanese businessman whip out cameras and start taking pictures of her! It's like the one racist urban myth Sofia Coppola couldn't cram into Lost In Translation crossed with a '70's sitcom, only worse.

Other people on this board have nominated many other 'lowpoints' in the film. They're all right. Everything sucks.

And now, just to be fair, I must admit that over the course of the film I actually smiled once. It was when Matthew Chambers copies the "I'm watching you" gesture Robert De Niro does in Meet the Parents. God knows why I found that funny, it may have been hysteria induced by the extreme rubishness of what I was witnessing. After that my brain just shut down under the onslaught of ineptitude and wrongness.

I also viewed this picture on the premiere evening in Oxford. A friend somehow managed to get her paws on a few tickets for the girls and I!!! How cool hey? I have to say, any criticism is unfair.

Each to their own of course - and all opinions are welcome.

But, we (5 young girls) found this film to be fun, sweet and humorous.

After researching the cast, I know more information about them and after also seeing the film - can make an informed decision on performances.

Chambers and Thomas lead well with great chemistry. Two excellent young actors. Much more to come from them I think.

Supporting cast is OK - and direction is confident and impressive, especially when you realise the directors very young career/age.

I would advise you seeing this film if you are a fan of Rom-Coms.

Some very good and funny moments throughout. A refreshing inclusion was the surprise cameo of "Prince William." HAHA.

Actually, it isn't the real prince, but his lookalike (Turpin). He is not a professional actor, but does add to the film through looking very like William and delivering a few semi-funny lines - has decent screen presence. Oxford is also refreshing as back drop. Makes a change from London!

In summary, a good achievement in my book - an enjoyable light hearted film. Check it out if its the genre you tend to like. 7/10. :-)

After winning tickets to the premiere on local radio, I was looking forward to the event, but after reading up on the film's history was sceptical about the film.

The plot, while it touches on the original story, sends you off course all the time with poor direction, and what to me, was obviously at best a pretty poor script. The sub-plots tried to grab your attention, but in reality only increased your eagerness for the film to grind to a blundering halt. I don't want to be too harsh on the director, and whilst she could of perhaps done better, the "hollyoaks" style actors are mostly to blame. The lead male (matthew chambers) was no where near strong enough for the part, and, an already "fake" uninteresting side plot involving prince William (matthew Turpin), was made worse by the "prince's" acting. At times it looked like he was reading off an auto cue for direction. The film then, I would only recommend to die hard lady Godiva fans or girls/guys on a awful blind date, as their is a perfectly acceptable excuse for leaving early. Dire! I don't normally comment on film's but I usually check reviews before going and only see "good" ones, so as no one had commented I thought it was only my duty to try and save some peeps some money.

I'll give it a 2/10 as I saw a semi naked young lady riding into the premiere on horseback...

Thanks for reading, Jason

Oh gosh where to start. I saw Miss Jewson being interviewed on Chris Jones' web site where she spoke about this film. Interested I logged on here to look at some reviews and was shocked at the viciousness of the comments (some of them personal, which reflect more on the reviewers than the reviewed!). Now intrigued I bought a copy off amazon and sat down with the 'misses' to watch it.

Well I have to say - yes it is a stinker, but it reminded me of a TV adaptation of one of Jilly Cooper's novels 'Riders' which was also awful but interestingly so awful people liked it! It was unintentionally hilarious and this is in the same category.

Watching it is like sucking on a lemon and trying not to wince. It is full of cringingley clichéd moments that you find yourself looking away from and feeling embarrassed.

But hey this site does not need another person slagging this film off so hats off Miss Jewson for getting a feature made, and on that patronising note I think I'll finish the review. Except to say in years to come I'm sure the director will have a laugh at her own expense and think: 'what was I doing?'