supermaggie What's with the haters??? This is a dog movie/ a children's movie, and a cute one, so why all this slamming? Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino are perverts, the makers of AHS are sadistic and disrespectful to foreign nations and people in general, Scorsese is cold as ice and consequently his characters are the same - but all you are bitching about is a cute, little dog who was in some talent show and then got a movie of his own? What in heaven's name is bad about this??? People really are sick. And the movie is a cute, entertaining, funny, heartwarming flick with - sure, some clichés (it's a children's movie!!), but also a lot of originality, innovative fun, great camera work and makes you smile and feel good - can't say this about the critically acclaimed and popular "filmmakers" I mentioned above!!! Best idea to give Pudsey his own movie, keep up with the good work!!!

hayley-billingham When my kids were like "yeeaaah lets watch Pudsey" my first reaction was to groan inwardly and try and find another film available that would be much better for viewing. But for the lack of films available that we hadn't already seen I gave in and pressed play. And to be honest it's as not as bad as I first thought. Even though my bloke fell asleep while I watching not once but three times, but hey it's not too bad. There were some cringe moments and there were some funny moments. I don't think it deserves 2 out of 10. I think people have given it A low score due to knowing where Pudsey originated from, and it's got Simon Cowells backing. It's really not that awful, I've seen worse in kids movies and this is watchable.

shawneofthedead It is, indeed, the end of days. A dancing dog won a reality television show (Britain's Got Talent), and is now starring in his own feature film. HIS OWN FEATURE FILM. The thought of it is appalling - and, strictly speaking, so is the resulting film. As you might expect from a movie rushed into production to cash in on a phenomenon, Pudsey The Dog: The Movie isn't particularly well-written and is occasionally quite terrible. All that being said, however, there's also no denying that the mutt at the heart of this enterprise has a charm all his own, and will likely win over most kids watching the film.The plot, such as it is, goes something like this: Pudsey (voiced by comedian David Walliams) acts in the movies, but really longs to find a family of his own. Fired from the set of a Hollywood film (insert great in-joke here for fans of black-and-white classic The Thin Man), Pudsey encounters a set of three children - quirky Molly (Izzy Meikle-Small), quippy George (Spike White) and quiet Tommy (Malachy Knights) - just as their mom, Gail (Jessica Hynes), has decided to move the entire family to the countryside to start a new life. Still reeling from the loss of their dad, the three kids find comfort in Pudsey's steadfast friendship. But life in their new village remains complicated by Mr. Thorne (John Sessions), their creepy landlord who detests dogs and is keen to monetise the land upon which their cottage sits.This all plays out in predictable ways: Molly learns to embrace her own weirdness; Tommy finds his voice again; Pudsey spins, dances, mucks about in a giant pie and generally saves the day. We've seen it all before, and odds are we've seen it done better than it is here. There are jokes which fall disappointingly flat, and jokes made in awkwardly bad taste - most of which revolve around Ken (voiced by Dan Farrell), a pig who believes himself to be a chicken laying an egg. This is the thinly-disguised reason to stuff the film full of genuinely awful poop jokes that will test the patience of even the most forbearing of audience members.And yet, mediocre as Pudsey resolutely remains, the film is also broadly watchable. Kids will love Pudsey, and adults - especially as the credits roll - will gain an appreciation of just how difficult it was to capture the right shots of the dog to lend emotional weight to the film. The cast is actually fairly decent, even though they're all playing second fiddle to Pudsey. Knights, in particular, stands out among the younger actors, while fans of British television will enjoy Hynes' work as always, even while lamenting the fact that she doesn't get much to do. Sessions, who is forced into any number of odd costumes for dubious comic effect, soldiers through his scenes with remarkable fortitude, which - given the ignominies to which he is subjected - is deserving of its own odd sort of respect.Not by any means a very good film, Pudsey nevertheless muddles along in a (mostly) inoffensive way. It's hardly great art, and it's tough not to be bitterly cynical about the reasons as to why it was made. But, for all that, this is a film made for children and, in this regard, it succeeds reasonably well. Kids will identify with the trials and tribulations of their counterparts in the movie, and will no doubt adore the antics of Pudsey and the rest of the animal cast. The grown-ups in the audience might chafe at the bit after a while, but even they are given a couple of chuckle-worthy, properly surreal moments to enjoy as the film trundles along.

martin-montague My 7 yr old daughter persuaded me to watch this film with her last week. I was expecting to see a film that had some relevance to the reason the dog is famous in the first place i.e. the fact that it's a dancing dog. Although there were some scenes that featured Pudsey dancing & standing on his hind legs etc they were very much shoehorned into the script almost as an after thought & bore very little relevance to the story at all. So why make a movie staring Pudsey the dog? The answer of course is very simple. If you are a singer & a star on BGT you can of course go on to make lots of money selling CD's & performing at live concerts. Pudsey the dog, even though he may have been taken to the hearts of the nation, is very much a one trick pony. So someone had the bright idea to cash in while he's still famous & stick him in a movie. To be honest I did enjoy the start of the film, which has quite a few funny, if not particularly original scenes. I also enjoyed pointing out to my daughter the rear number plate on the white trailer, which is absent when the family set off on their journey, but manages to appear & disappear several times on the way. ( one for the Robert Webb show there). Unfortunately after this the film takes a bit of a nose dive into a sentimental mishmash of Lassie, meets Babe, meets Nanny McPhee & the big bang, meets 101 Dalmatians. These were of course, with the possible exception of Lassie, all very good movies. (In fact I'm not ashamed to admit I was filling up at the end the Nanny McPhee & the big bang.) This however is not a good film. So what's wrong with it then I hear you ask? Well it's certainly not the acting. In fact John Sessions puts in a very good performance as the pantomime villain. And Pudsey is, well, just Pudsey. The problem is the script. It is written by a guy called Paul Rose who as far as I can see from his page on this site hasn't actually written a film script before. What he has done is scripts for children's TV shows such as Dani's Castle, My Parents are Aliens & Sooty. Shows which are basically a series of quick fire gags. Maybe if there had been enough money in the kitty to employ the talents of George Miller (Babe)or Emma Thompson there might have been a different result. My daughter, who quite enjoyed the film, asked me to explain to her what was so wrong with it. I told her that when she has seen as many films as I have & has something to compare it with, she might be a bit more critical. But maybe I am missing the point. Because if you're a 7 year old who can watch back to back episodes of You've Been Framed & laugh at people falling over again & again & again then maybe this film is just what you want to see.