Save your money for something good and enjoyable

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

I was 10 when this movie was released and I still find it captivating, and enjoy seeing the joy in my children's faces when it comes on!

One of the great Dick Van Dyke's best performances. Fantastic sets. Wonderful cinematography. Musical component complements and does not overwhelm the production. You can be comfortable watching with the entire family. This movie was so well put together that I thought it had been produced as a feature by Disney Studios. You will enjoy.

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

There's little to dislike about CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG, a fun and colourful musical written by Ian Fleming, no less; it's packed with memorable music, has colourful cinematography, an imaginative script and a decent cast. Of the principal actors, it's fair to say that Dick Van Dyke puts memories of MARY POPPINS and dodgy accents behind him in his enthusiastic turn as madcap inventor Caractacus Potts.It's rare to find a film which boasts decent performances from the child actors, but they're good here, as are the likes of Benny Hill and Lionel Jeffries in support. The songs are a lot of fun, particularly the titular one, of course.My only complaint, which isn't too much of one, really, is that it grows more and more fantastic as it goes on, and the last third is more like a silly fantasy sequence; there's Roald Dahl to blame for that, I think. At least the writers saw this and put in an explanation of it being all a dream sequence so that it kind of makes sense.