User reviews

Having not yet seen the original version. I can only take the Mark Gatiss version on its own terms.

Gatiss is an aficionado of period horror. He might just be the right man to adapt The Amazing Mr Blunden and make it family friendly.

Simon Callow looks just right as Mr Blunden, a lawyer haunted by his failure to protect two orphans placed in his care.

The story starts with newly widowed Mrs Allen trying to claim benefits just before Christmas.

She and her two children Lucy and Jamie get an offer to be a caretaker of a huge mansion by the mysterious Mr Blunden.

The house is regarded as being haunted. Lucy and Jamie come across the ghosts of two children who are going to be murdered. The ones Mr Blunden let down.

It is for Lucy and Jamie to make sure that history doesn't repeat itself.

I found the story to be rather charming. Mark Gatiss and Tamsin Greig bring the right amount of Dickensian grotesque as Mr and Mrs Wickens.

It does feel rather low budget given it is a Sky production. Then again Gatiss is used to low budgets for his BBC4 ghost story adaptations.

There are some nods to Doctor Who as Gatiss tries so hard not to use the phrase timey-wimey. He replaces it with the wheels of time.

Having been enchanted by the Diana Dors and Lawerence Naismith version when I was a child, I was excited and apprehensive to see this version. However I have learnt with re-makes, that while comparisons will be made, I should take a fresh view at the re-make and treat it as a new film. That's what I did with this one.

I found it to have a charm and while there seemed to be less of the 'fantastical' view that I remember with the previous film, it gave an updated version with modern characters.

Simon Callow was a great Mr Blunden and it was great to see the two guest cameo roles.

I have kept this on my TiVo box and have watched it a few times. And am waiting for the Naismith/Dors version to come on!

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.

I actually really like this movie ! Nice story and very charming ! Worth to watch. Not just for kids. Sometimes a little unbelievable - But it doesn't matter... it's fantasy.

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 grew up loving the original film. I started watching this version thinking I'm probably going to be disappointed. I'm glad to say I wasn't. Utterly charming. Great casting. Superb acting from the young cast. Simon Callow was an excellent choice as Mr Blunden. It was lovely to see a couple of the original cast with a small part. Also great to see the ending kept the same with the characters all saying goodbye to the audience. This is a great version.

I am sure some bright young thing thought you could take a children's classic and just update it to make it relevant to todays 'yoof' but in doing so just turned an original story into an anodyne tale. It doesn't work on many levels but particularly doesn't work based in 2021. Someone has tried to hit all the right buttons to show how right on they are but instead produced stereotypes, what value did two men kissing bring to the story apart from gaining brownie points?

The actors did their best, Simon Callow gave a good performance .but it wasn't enough to save a poor script it all seemed rather amateurish. It will satisfy young children and those who have never read the original book by Antonia Barber but but for a real adaptation see the 1972 film which is excellent for all ages.

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.

I really loved this, a little bit of fantasy, an escape for a an hour or so from reality. Easy for the young ones to follow and nothing horrifying that would frighten the little ones. Good all rounder.

Very disappointing remake of a classic children's film. Don't waste your time, just check out the original. An classic ghost story has been robbed of it's atmosphere. A lightweight version with comic book characters.

The original film is one of my favourite films and whilst initially I was a little bemused by the first few minutes, I realised that the 'modern world' aspect was never a time period element.

The main story remained comparatively accurate to the main film and the acting wasn't such that the actors were trying to act in the same style and mannerisms of the original actors.

I may have slightly over rated the film, for the remake of a near 50 year old film to be suitably watchable and thoroughly entertaining for the whole family, it is well deserved.

An awful remake of a classic film. All the charm of the original is gone, replaced by a forced sense of humour and unlikeable characters. All the classic one liners that made the original so funny and enjoyable are gone. If you really want to enjoy the story of The Amazing Mr. Blunden then watch the original, the only one worth your time. Such a shame.

The Amazing Mr Blunden (2021)-

It starts off well, but then it becomes quite childish, but in a style from about ten years ago or possibly even longer as it has the same production values and ideals as TV films from my own childhood, which is not that recent.

Some of the characters are very pantomime and I don't think that was necessary. They are more enjoyable if they're realistic, especially when it isn't all of the cast. And actually they would have been more scary too.

The kids are ok and Simon Callow is obviously brilliant in his performance, although his character, Mr Blunden isn't really "Amazing", just guilty. A "Scrooge" that knew a spell.

There are similarities in the story to 'Lemony Snicket's Series Of Unfortunate Events' with bits of 'A Christmas Carol', 'Five Children And It, and the 'Narnia' stories, but it's definitely not executed anywhere near as well as these.

I wonder if it's true to the original book? I mean it was obviously not set in 2021, but I would be interested to know if the book has more incite as to why Mr Blunden might be amazing? (The book is actually called 'The Ghosts' though).

I wouldn't rush to watch it again, but might give it a second chance in years to come and maybe my mood might be more cheery and I may see something new that I missed on this first viewing, but I doubt it.

240.92/1000.

American here. I have never seen the original. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I found it had a good pace, interesting story and I liked the cast. It made me smile. I found it very charming.

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.

Please ignore all the negative reviews. The original film is a childhood favourite of mine, so I did hesitate before watching this.

However, I absolutely loved it! Unlike some remakes, it has stuck to the original story. There were a couple of 2021 references in the early part, but not so as to distract from the story.

Simon Callow was wonderful as Mr Blunden, the perfect modern-day choice in my opinion; indeed, I enjoyed the performances of all the actors. Also lovely cameo by Madeline Smith.

That there are so many racist comments saddens me, particularly as it's probably people the same age as me. Shame on all of you.

As a child of the 1960's, the original film was like many a part of my childhood. Unfortunately, the remake is a pale shadow of the original.

Its puzzling to have seen ratings for the remake giving 10's and 8's - even the greatest Hollywood films in history never scored 10's.

I grew up with the original film in the 70s and it's always been my favourite film which transports me back to being a child and believing in magic. This version seemed rushed, lacked magic and the characters weren't given any depth. Won't be watching this version again. Original in this case is the film to stand by.

The original is one of my favourite movies from childhood yes this wasn't going to beat the original but it wasn't meant to it was meant to bring the story to new generations of viewers, I think mark gatiss did a great job and the little music at the end from the original was perfect Simon callow was excellent as mr blunden all in all a wonderful addition to Christmas viewing.

If like myself you grew up watching the original which was magical then I'm afraid Mr Gatiss fare was always on to a hiding. The new version will appeal to a new audience but lacks warmth, atmosphere and is full of very wooden performances. Tamsin Greig and Simon Cowell are acceptable but are not a patch on Dors or Naismith. We are also subjected to the common place politically correct balance of ethnic characters and this is tiresome. The original film is a classic ghost story with great characters, warmth and fantastic delivery. This adaptation is an insult and not worthy of your time.

I haven't seen the original for years but have warm memories of it. Mark Gatiss knows how to do period dark fairy tales and this one is a nice update that retains the charm. Simon Callow is a good choice for the titular character and is avuncular and warm. Please ignore the trolling 1 star reviews that sadly follow any attempts to update films that were unthinkingly whiter than white. The young leads were perfectly appealing and if you're the sort of person who just sees their skin colour, you are the one with the problem! Gatiss had updated a children's film classic really well with lots of nice character touches - I liked the military speak from the other lawyer, but still not managed to spot film critics Mark Kermode and Kim Newman yet who are apparently in the background somewhere...

Stick with the original versions it is better in every single department. I don't know why I am even surprised. Nothing seemed to fit. From the forced diverse characters to the obviously bad white people.

Oh very dear. Sometimes rather than letting a classic be left as the definitive a modern creative takes it upon themselves to make a "modernised" and updated version. Sky have form in this field with an entirely unnecessary foray into Rocky Horror. This version has moved the timeline of the later period to the modern day with overly stereotypically phone obsessed teens. The representation fairy has been hard at work and though not as weird as the recent Gawain and the Green Knight with a Briton of the Middle Ages being suddenly Asian it is still a bit of a nonsense and you can seen the producers working to fit in the demographics. So all in all it leaves you begging the question why did they bother?

Don't believe the naysayers - many of whom seem to be obsessed with a movie from the 70's which was pretty inferior. Not a "classic".

This is a kids film and, as a kids film, it works really well. It's well made, well directed, well cast & with great production values given the budget.

A cut above many other "kids" movies. It's refreshing to see something that is Uk centric & has a ghost story/mystery element. Not every kids movie has to be animated, feature superheroes & dumb down to reach as broad an audience as possible....

The charm & the skill of this is to present a different story up kids . Look at it for what it is & imagine yourself 8-10 years old & it's great! Really liked it a lot.