Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

How sad is this?

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

One of my favourite Carry on films. Yes, it is silly but then all the carry on franchise is silly. Kids love them but don't understand the double entendres, adults love them but don't appreciate the silliness. You kind of grow out of them. This one still has me roaring and using quotes out of it 30 years after I roared at it as a kid. Can't say the same for earlier ones. Windsor Davies and Kenneth Connor make a great team. I think it's a shame that it gets the poor reviews it gets just because the old team, Sid James, Charles Hawtry, Barbara Windsor, Bernard Bresslaw to name a few not in it but in the same respect, I only like James Bond starring Roger Moore because that was my era but my partner prefers Sean Connery because that was his era. Horses for courses I say.

Don't take this the wrong way, I really like the Carry On movies but this movie was awful. First of all, the film looks fairly cheap, no really clever costumes and sets as far as I could see. And I actually found the music annoying in alternative to quirky, and the direction was sloppy, complete with messy pacing. The dialogue is not funny, the gags are poorly timed, the story isn't there and the actors really struggle with the material(no wonder). Kenneth Connor has been great in a number of Carry Ons, but that was when he was supporting. I found him bland here, and Peter Butterworth looks bored. Joan Sims is wasted, and I just missed Sidney James(who sadly passed away), Kenneth Williams and Charles Hawtrey, these guys even with superficial material always seemed to know what they were doing. Overall, a complete mess, with the fact that it is quite short being pretty much the only redeeming quality. 1/10 Bethany Coz

The much maligned Carry on England actually contains the germ of a good idea. It shows a mixed group of soldiers – men and women – made to suppress their sexual desires in order to join in the "war effort" and sub-textually sublimate their carnality in martial manoeuvres. In the right hands, this idea could have been an incisive and subversive satire on the mentality of militarism, an amalgamation of Kubrick's two films on a similar theme, Dr Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket. Unfortunately, the makers of this – the 28th Carry On film – didn't have the abilities to fulfil the promise of such a fierce idea. The details and characterisations in the script are lame, the direction is flat & dreary and the performers are, for the most part, completely charmless.Most of the cast are not the regular Carry On team, and most of them shouldn't be in a Carry On. Not only are the likes of Patrick Mower and Judy Geeson profoundly unfunny, they are also curiously dislikeable here. This is unfortunate, as these are the actors playing the put-upon soldiers, whose sexuality and rebellion we should sympathise with; as it is, they are so mean-spirited and without personality that our sympathies lie with the much put-upon martinet Captain S Melly (yes, that's the level of the humour) – played with professionalism if not success by Carry On veteran Kenneth Connor – whose job it is to turn the lusty recruits into fighting machines. He is assisted by Windsor Davies, who is simply recreating his "shut up!" routine from the TV series It Ain't Half Hot Mum and almost giving himself a hernia as he strains to be funny. He gets one or two laughs, which is more than can be said for his co-star in IAHHM Melvyn Hayes, who makes little impression as the aptly named Gunner Shorthouse, or Carry Onners Jack Douglas and Joan Sims, completely wasted in thankless parts. Peter Butterworth gets the most mileage out of his comic reactions to Brigadier Peter Jones (a poor replacement for Kenneth Williams)'s bad jokes.The was some controversy when this was first released in the UK, as it earned itself a 'AA' certificate from the BBFC, meaning that the series' largest audience, - kids - couldn't get in to see the film. The certificate was earned by a few very ribald double entendres and a lot more topless women than we usually see in a Carry On; one scene has almost the entire female section regiment with their knockers out; I say "almost" as they thankfully spared us the sight of a bare breasted Joan Sims.Despite the fine idea underlying the comedy, Carry on England is pretty much the worst of the series, if you discount the truly execrable and barely mentionable Carry on Columbus, which England looks like Shakespeare next to.

Set in 1940 in England, this is a story about a particular military outfit made up of men and woman who were particularly inept, lazy and probably a bit oversexed. Sid James, who wasn't supposed to be here anyway, passed away before the film was done. He could have brought some life into this, he was a great comedian. This movie is very shrill, lots of yelling, lots of noise. Does the new general of this company whip these people into shape? Do you care? The jokes are very obvious here, and I was only semi-amused a few times. The movie seems labored, and that is not good for a Carry On film. I would only recommend this film for Carry On completists. Otherwise, there are other films in the series which are infinitely better (examples are Carry On Doctor, Carry On Abroad, Carry On-Don't Lose Your Head etc).