ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

SparkMore 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.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

CosmicPrune For twenty five years I have carried this film around as a pre-prepared answer to any question which includes the words "worst film". Of course I have seen worse films on TV at strange hours of the afternoon or early morning, but I have neither watched them in their entirety nor handed over my own hard-earned cash to see them. I reserve scores of one out of ten for some of those movies, and this one merits a score of two purely because I did manage to endure it all.This film is a tragic waste of the talent assembed to produce it. I'm not sure whether it's the script, the editing, the direction or all three which conspired to make it so bad but it's almost an achievement in itself that so many fine comedy actors were employed in pursuit of such a lost cause. The Carry On franchise was never intended to be thought-provoking but it's irreverence and cheekiness evoked a more innocent time which, while it may not have really been as innocent as it made out, was well and truly over by the time Columbus hit our theatres. Even with those qualities intact it would have been fairly excruciating in 1992, but it wasn't even that good. It isn't so much of an anachronism as an embarrassment and I'll bet there were a few tense conversations between actors and agents in the period following its release.

FlashCallahan Christopher Columbus believes he can find an alternative route to the far East and persuades the King and Queen of Spain to finance his expedition. But the Sultan of Turkey, who makes a great deal of money through taxing the merchants who have to pass through his country on the current route, sends his best spy, Fatima, to wreck the trip, but she ultimately falls for the charm of Columbus....Innuendo ahoy!! COC (which nobody is calling it), an innuendo in itself, was the first Carry On... film in twenty years, and feature series regular Jim Dale. Now due to the fact that he was a regular, he appears to be, along with a cameo from Jack Douglas, to be making an effort with the dire script and story.Watching it twenty five years since it's release, it's a veritable who's who of sketch/game show, sitcoms, one hit wonder hosts, and the bloke who ran Oz cabs in Eastenders.So for nostalgia value, it's worth seeing just to see so many prolific artists slumming it with a script that is homophobic, racist, sexist, and ultimately downright silly for the best part of the film.So why did I find on occasion to be tittering like an old woman who laughed at The Roly Poly's when they were a staple part of Saturday night TV.Simple, because it's hilarious to see the innuendo literally forced from the mouths of those spouting the inane material.Clarey is the main culprit in this, at a time when he was more famous for being called 'The Joan Collins Fan Club', but when he began his TV career, his act was basically sending up the fact that he was homosexual.He had no material, and here he appears to be revelling in the fact that he is being self deprecating to his sexuality.There isn't much of a story, it's just an excuse to get a chock full of famous Brits trying to steal a scene.And the punchline? It was the highest grossing Columbus film of the three that were released in 1992.Terrible, but you'll watch it to the end.

Blueghost I'm surprised this film was greenlit. It looks like a British or European attempt to mimic the American pre-teen to 20-something market commercial film making model. It's a mercifully free form the burden of intelligence production, but has a kind of simplistic charm to it that melds old school bawdy comedies with a somewhat more intellectual based material. So you get gags about personas of the time, what they did, what they asked for and achieved.If you know your renaissance history, know what was happening around the time of Columbus and his famous voyage(s), then you'll be in the know. In short, you need to have some history in your mind regarding the place and period to appreciate some of the humor.But, not all of the humor is immersed in historical data (or interpretations thereof). A lot of it basic gag material, some of it sexual, some of it slapstick, some of it is just basic humor about every day habits of people. In summation the film isn't all that funny, but it has a kind of light hearted charm to it, and in this way amusing, but it's more miss than hit in terms of a good funny film.Even so, it is a good film after a fashion. I'm not sure what went wrong here, but there is a kind of attractiveness just to the overall structure and film itself. But, that's the film maker in me talking, and not the Joe-Audience member that should be authoring this review.If you need a little light amusement in your life, you could do worse, but you could also do better than "Carry On Columbus".A harmless title all the same, but not something I'd readily recommend. Watch at your own risk.

paul-johnson107 This is an alright Carry On however it's just not the same is it. Jim Dale does his best supported by a handful of Carry On regulars such as Jack Douglas, Bernard Cribbins and Leslie Phillips but it's just not the same without Sid, Kenney Williams and the others. I cannot decide whether or not Peter Rogers and Gerald Thomas were right to make this one because although it is titled carry on, it isn't really because there is not familiar faces apart from Jim and the few mentioned above. What i cant understand is why the older cast members only had small parts and the new comedians had larger parts, it's a carry on film, the cast should have had the largest parts and been supported by the new comers to the series.