Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

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

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Majikat Not the best of the series of films, but still easy going fun. Of course there is the sexualisation of women, whilst two letchy men ogle and make their rounds, but it is a sign of the times.

bob the moo Bus driver Stan gets engaged to sweetheart Suzy - much to the annoyance of Stan's mother, sister and brother in law; how will they afford to pay the rent without Stan's money coming into the house? In order to be able to move out, Stan agrees to help Arthur get a job on the buses with him. However his attempts to teach him how to drive the bus are frustrated by Blakey's new boss and his efficiency drives.Anyone approaching On The Buses cannot really complain about the humour being basic, sexist and crude - this is a given. However it is the other qualities that make this a bad film. True the humour is very broad, sexist and silly but this wouldn't have been a problem for me if it had even managed to ever be funny more than once. Sadly it doesn't and is depressingly devoid of laughs throughout. This is made worse by a plot that actually has no idea where it is going - it uses the very basic frame of Stan's engagement but where it goes with it is just all a bit silly and doesn't really work. The collection of scenes that make up the plot are supposed to be wacky and fun but actually just stand out as badly dated and banal, certainly laughs are not part of them.The material also lets down the characters as none of them are engaging - it is a damning comment on the script that I never cared one way or another what happened to the characters here. The cast don't help - the drivers are all womanising lads, the bosses all incompetent and flustered and the girls either battleaxes or `hot totty'! Varney and Grant don't display much in the way of comic ability here as they are not given anything to work with but the most basic tools. The only character that stands out is Blakey but that is more down to his memorable and oft-imitated line; he isn't great but his character is the most enjoyable of a bad bunch.Overall it is unfair to complain that this film's humour is broad and sexist because what else did you really expect from this film series? However it is fair to complain that the film lacks laughs, any sort of plot and is really difficult to enjoy even if you expect it to be broad and basic. A really poor film that is wholly lacking in laughs and is pretty unenjoyable all told.

The_Movie_Cat Mutiny on the Buses is a sophisticated, intertextual, self-reflexive discourse on the nature of the classic novel by Charles Nordhoff. It also takes in Kafkaesque leanings by exercising a circular narrative. That some could mistake it for a witless, charmless and crass 70s sex comedy is beyond me.The film also exhibits a razor-sharp social conscience. After accidentally demolishing a stop, Jack (Bob Grant) suggests "We'll say some hooligans did it... lot of stupid louts doing things like that these days." In all seriousness though it really is utter garbage. There's an increase in slapstick, the ineptness of which would be funny were it not for the jingly-jangy 70s soundtrack. Definitely not one of Ron Grainer's better days.In its defence, this one probably has a better plot than the others (which isn't exactly difficult) as Blakey gets a new manager to assess his operation. Blakey's forced to clamp down with more stringent rules, cueing an inevitable worker rebellion. When Blakey orders his staff to wear "nothing but their uniforms", they come without shoes and shirts. This also includes the seven-strong female crew, who like nothing better than exposing their breasts to the entire staff. Even a company darts night can be rigged by showing a pair of red knickers.The climactic pay-off is a shameless plug for Windsor Safari Park, with a lion and monkeys on the bus. However, this desperate pile of contrived cheese is again salvaged by the wonderful Stephen Lewis. Some of the situations are just gross - a baby defecates in a potty while Stan's at the dinnertable. Rather predictably, he later excretes in Arthur's cap. The baby, that is. Not Stan, though that would have probably been funnier. As with my two other Buses reviews, I have to stress the humour division inherent in the set-up. When Blakey (A creation of comic genius in Lewis's hands) is on screen, it's hilarious. When he isn't, it's absolutely dire. Most of the "humour" is, as usual, shockingly un-PC. Stan strings girls along with the promise of marriage in order to get sex, and accuses Blakey of being a homosexual. Other unsettling scenes show Michael Robbins shaking his baby and screaming for it to "Shut up!" Letting off a foam extinguisher in someone's face is also shown to be within acceptable safety guidelines. A clothes-ripping catfight threatens to engender interest, though is foiled by involving Anna Karen. This is particularly nauseous when Reg Varney accidentally gropes his screen sister's left breast.Very occasionally a line might get a laugh in an unforeseen modern context. After seeing a female conductor emerging with Stan from the top deck, Blakey cries: "You know the regulations, you're not even supposed to eat your lunch upstairs." Yes, this film is truly terrible... yet in a funny sort of way I can't help but like it.

motor89 This wasn't funny in 1972. It's not funny now.Unlike a lot of other people, I'm not bashing the film because it is incredibly sexist - I quote enjoyed that bit, or rather I enjoyed the reaction it generates in annoying PC people - I'm bashing it because it is poorly written and acted.The only really memorable character is Blakey, which British people 25 years old will recognise immediately since he was a favourite with impressionists for a long time.Avoid.