UnowPriceless hyped garbage

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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!

Isawthat This movie is listed as TV, yet in Austrlia it was shown in cinemas where I saw it with my family, The movie was true to the Roald Dahl book and was as enjoyable and whimsical, the acting and direction was what was needed for such a classic and I never felt let down or became conscious of the fact that I was watching a movie, but rather was taken away with the story , which is something I long for in movies. I would so enjoy seeing this again, it is in my psyche with such movies as "The railway children" and "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" of which all were British. If your a lover of children's literature and wish to be taken away by a wonderful and endearing movie with values not often contained in entertainment today, this movie is for you.

Lee Eisenberg I saw "Danny the Champion of the World" in fifth grade right after we read Roald Dahl's novel. Portraying a widowed father and son resisting a developer's plan to expand his estate onto their property in rural England in 1955, the movie does a worthy job although it did change some things from the book. It made sense to have Jeremy Irons and his son play Samuel play father and son in the movie; as it was, I'd never heard of Jeremy Irons before watching this movie (and anyone who knows his movies knows that this was probably his most unusual role). It's also interesting now that I know that Victor Hazell was played by Robbie Coltrane, who more recently played Hagrid in the Harry Potter movies. All in all, a pretty good movie.

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.