Disgusting waste of public money


This is a pathetic excuse for a film. It's a disgusting waste of public money and proves what I've suspected for a long time - that the UK Film Council only approves money for their showbiz mates.

How on earth this script could have been given the go ahead God only knows. I read a newspaper response from the Film Council that justified itself by saying that the UK is made up of lots of people and they're there to make films for everyone. Really? Who is it that you think you made this for? Lobotomised idiots?
What's the record of Film Council spending? If their spending is for everyone, why are there not more films like this? Is this the Film Council's view of what the working classes like? Too many unanswered questions.

SIDEBAR: The truth is the Film Council thinks itself untouchable and does what the blood hell it likes, including spending British taxpayer's money on French and German films and, can you believe it, The Station Agent! A great film yes. But distributed by Miramax! Like they deserve public money?! This is more about the toffs at the Film Council furthering their own careers by buying favour with big American studios.

I'm not a prude and I'm happy to laugh at toilet humour when it's funny. This film is just a bad film. It's unfunny and relies on crudity which I just found plain boring.
It is possible to make a crude entertaining film but this isn't it. Unfortunately all those responsible for this pile of crap couldn't care less. They're too busy quaffing Champagne at the expense of hard-working tax payers.

The End.

reply

not enough period costumes for you?

listen dear, they are playing our tune.

reply

This movie was subsidized? Unbelievable!

reply

my workmate lent it to me last week. today i watched it and i was bored from the off, then i just skipped chapters hoping it might of improved.

this film is worse than toilet humour. its just krap

reply

This is funny from the first scenes to the last, somewhat comfusing scene. Remember, British and American humour are sometimes at very opposite poles to each other.

reply

this was a not too bad comedy. Even if it was subsidesed , it did make it's money back, pretty low budget, and no Hollywood actors insight, it's hardly like it was subsidised by British taxes payers! You do realise that does hand has never happened , don't you?

reply

Come on! This was a really funny movie. You're just mad because there was no butler in it.

reply

[deleted]

I thought it was great ,best brit comedy in years ,also a lot more of taxpayers money is wasted on other *beep* in the uk ,i thought it was money well spent

reply

The worst film i have ever seen

reply

The worst film i have ever seen as well.

reply

You've lead a sheltered life

----

Even if you hate Uwe Boll, give Postal a try, be offended or entertained.

reply

I've seen thousands of movies and this has to be the worst.

reply

Name them

----

Even if you hate Uwe Boll, give Postal a try, be offended or entertained.

reply

[deleted]

I'd rather we subsidise a film like this than subsidise the royal family! The complainers are always full of it.

reply