Absolutely the worst movie.

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

It's fifty years-old this year and it still hit the mark. I watched this with my eldest son when he was about 6 and he loved it. But, I just forgot about it as time went by. He's 14 now. I put it on last night for my other two kids, who are 10 & 5, well they loved it. Watched it again the very next day. My teenage son even sat in and watched it too. They sing the theme song now while driving. The only bad point to me is that it's a very long movie and it can seem a little slow at times. Probably not a bad thing to a kid though, mine never complained. They asked questions about "the olden days" as it's onviously set even many years before it was made. I loved the questions and the insight into a different time of story telling. He movie was at least 25 years old when I saw it and it seemed old to me then. But I loved it. Great movie. Don't be turned off thinking kids won't like it compared to modern kid and family movies. It's dated but that's not a bad thing.

No one would ever make a movie like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang in current day - and more's the pity. For a film so iconic, it draws from a curious fusion of influences. Yes, it's an oddity already by being adapted from the only children's work penned by Ian Fleming, creator of James Bond (even if only whiffs of Fleming's aristocratic preoccupations remain in the film's class disparity subtext). There's also the unmistakable lyrically acrobatic musical chirpiness of the Sherman brothers, which is vintage Mary Poppins caliber. The whimsical weirdness of screenwriter Roald Dahl's is embraced at full tilt, and there's even a strong Monty Python vibe in its surreal, heightened goofiness. But somewhere in the centre of the maelstrom of zaniness lies something fundamentally Chitty: adorably sweet and earnest amidst its heartfelt wackiness. And it's this that helps the film hold up much better than you'd expect - still a delight for children young and old even nearly forty years on. Attempting to summarize the film's increasingly off-the-rails plot reads like the story was written by one of its target audience ("and then the flying car and spies follow the sky-pirates to an evil Baron's kingdom full of toys!"), but it's clear that cohesion is far from the point. If anything, the film's halfhearted attempt to rationalize its fantasy interlude as a story-within-the-story feels both clumsy and disingenuous to its enjoyable whimsy. Still, there's too much fun being had to dwell on technicalities. And while Dahl cutting loose with silly abandon in his adventure for the ages is grandiose enjoyment, it's actually just as pleasant to hang out with Van Dyke's kooky inventory and his impressively adorable-but-not-annoying children (Adrian Hall and Heather Ripley), as he gets up to scientific mischief or simply sings about how he loves their family. But just when the proceedings of reconciling the heteronormative family unit skirt becoming too winsome, Dahl's wackiness comes crashing in to keep things breezy and bizarre. It helps, of course, that the film looks wonderful: Chitty herself is a gorgeous vehicle (even if the rear projection sequences of her driving or flying show their age). Fellow 007 veteran Ken Adam conjures spectacular sets grandiose enough for Goldfinger himself - Van Dyke's laboratory in particular is a labyrinth of contorted Seussian cogs and pipes. The sumptuous song and dance numbers complete the package, adding a stacked roster of perfectly heartwarming and hugely infections tunes to keep a smile on even the most curmudgeonly of faces. Still, it's the cast of characters that really keep the film afloat. Apart from the peerless, rubber-limbed, disarmingly grinning Dick Van Dyke at his most irresistibly charming, Sally Ann Howes' Truly Scrumptious (Dahl's poke at Fleming's goofy misogyny in naming female leads) showcases some impressive belting, as well as a welcome sweet side as her initial fussiness melts away. Supporting them are the most memorably zany crew of comedic relief this side of Python. Lionel Jeffries' prissy posturing as Van Dyke's garrulous grandfather is a dead ringer for Graham Chapman at his most side-splitting, particularly when scoffing an ode to British posh composure while being repeatedly dunked in the ocean swinging from a helicopter. Similarly, the delightful Gert Fröbe lampoons his Goldfinger villainy with stupendously silly gumption as the infantile Baron Bomburst; he even manages to sell his repeated attempts to casually murder his wife play as hilarious slapstick rather than as dubious as they'd sound. Alexander Doré and Bernard Spear's Spies punctuate scene transitions with sublime throwaway slapstick, while Robert Helpmann's leering Child Catcher is a vintage Dahl nightmare, verging on excessively creepy for his intended audience. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang may sputter throughout its jubilant refrains, with its 'kitchen sink' comedy and awkwardly motivated fantasy interjection toeing the limit of indulgent silliness. But in the same way that engine sputter has become one of the most iconic sound effects in cinema history, so has its eponymous car charmed its way into the hearts of generations - ramshackle but not rusty. So, whether reminiscing fondly through rosy nostalgia glasses or a new recruit, come and fly away with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. As Van Dyke affirms, it's simply the pragmatic course of action. -8.5/10

Charming, but incredibly unfocused. Starts very sweetly and promisingly. However, from a point it takes one bizarre random turn after another. Still very sweet and innocent, but devoid of a plot (surprising, considering the screenplay was written by Roald Dahl, based on an Ian Fleming book). The random scenes needn't have been so irritating if director Ken Hughes had just kept them to a minimum, as the remainder of the movie is great. However, the fairy tale sequence goes on for an eternity.Good performances by Dick Van Dyke and Sally Ann Howes in the lead roles. The kids, Heather Ripley and Adrian Hall, are great too. Good support from James Robertson Justice. Interesting to see Benny Hill in the fairy tale sequence - one of the few highlights of that part.Music is so-so. Some songs were downright cringeworthy.Overall, the charm and innocence more than make up for the random plot, and it would be very difficult to dislike the movie. Kids will love it.

I read this book as a child in the 60s. While it was a story of fantasy, it did not talk down to the reader and was full of wit and subtlety. When the movie came out, I was very excited to see the wonderful tale of imagination come to the screen. What resulted was so insulting to my intelligence that it horrified me. Dick van Dyke's moronic mugging, the idiotic songs, the over the top portrayal of the title character, and general treacly smarm and cheese completely destroyed an amazing book. You think I'm being harsh? Read the book. Skip this movie. If it isn't the worst movie ever made, it is without a doubt the worst adaptation of a book ever perpetrated. It destroyed my faith in humanity and my opinion has not changed as this movie has not improved with age, whereas the book retains all its integrity and charm. Roald Dahl should have known better.