The Amazing Mr Blunden

Adapted almost scene for scene from the original but with pantomime villains and a loss of charm and mystery. Whilst the young actors do their best and Callow is an acceptable Blunden the move to modern perood detracts from the timelessness of the Lionel Jeffrey's version. Watch the original and give yourself a treat.

For people who want to watch 'The Amazing Mr Blunden' please stick to the original 1972 version.

This modern remake falls short of storyline, acting, atmosphere and direction. Please leave the originals alone, come up with your own stories for today's society!

What's wrong Movie companies/Directors? Running out of original ideas?

A totally out of place movie.

I really wanted to see this as I loved the original. However, although this was watchable and modern kids may like it, it didn't have the magic of the original.

I found that the script was almost identical to the original but the acting was poorer. I thought Mr Blunden was well cast and so was Sara. Mrs Wickens was OK as well and Bella. The rest, not so much. To be fair, Lynne Frederick would be a hard act to follow as was the original actress who played the mother. There was just something about the original family that was missing in this adaptation.

I didn't like the fact that it was set in modern times, except when the children went back to 1821. The original was set in the early part of the 20th century and there was a magic to the Xmas scenes even though they were poor. The original had atmosphere. This one didn't. There was nothing new about it other than setting it in modern times. It was also too PC. Casting for the sake of it rather than what would have been more appropriate.

Overall, this was simply a cheap, lazy copy with no originality. I recommend the original 1972 version and the book. I believe the original book is being released again. If it's still in it's original format that will be fine. If it's been edited to suit the PC agenda then I recommend getting an old copy from somewhere.

This is no where near as good as the original film. It's so watered-down the characters are bland and it's just boring.

It doesn't draw you in and the acting just isn't at the same standard of the original film. There wasn't any magic to it like the original. I wish they would just leave these movies alone. If you can't make it better then don't do it!

The original film is the best. It has more emotion and the characters really draw you in making it believable.

No one can replace the original Mr Blunden.

Why they have to take a really good movie and remake it when the original classic was brilliant I just don't understand?

I am a huge fan of Mark Gatiss and I've been following his career since The League of Gentlemen. I loved Sherlock, his Dr Who work, and even his Dracula was interesting.

Unfortunately, this is a real misstep. Unlike some reviews, I don't have a problem with the colour blind casting. Nor do I mind the present day setting, although I felt the 200 years time shift too much. My issues are it's just badly paced and poorly directed.

The original had the luxury of setting the back story much better, particularly regarding the Wickens. Instead, we get some serious exposition by means of a puppet show. The whole thing is just too rushed. We know barely anything about Thomas, and it's obvious from our first meeting what the true nature of Mr Blunden is. Maybe this was all done make it more accessible to younger viewers, but I saw the original at a young age and understood it.

The acting? Tamsin Greig chews scenery, the kids are ordinary, Simon Callow is Simon Callow and Mr Gatiss himself? Ah. Oh dear. He is basically channeling Mickey from the Job Start scheme in The League of Gentlemen. Pretty...Pretty....awful.

If you have to watch one, watch the original.