Watch The League of Gentlemen's Apocalypse For Free

Too much of everything

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

With three series, a Christmas special and the original radio series, we were already spoilt for choice. To make any film was unnecessary, let alone make one as awful as this, where it feels like the actors are just going through the motions in order to please an audience.The concept is that the inhabitants of Royston Vasey realise that they are fictional characters and so they track down real writers Mark Gatiss, Jeremy Dyson, Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton (playing themselves apart from non-actor Jeremy Dyson who is played by Michael Sheen). Despite the marketing material promising Tubbs and Edward (seemingly come back from the dead), we get a brief cameo. Other iconic characters such as Papa Lazarou and Pauline also receive this treatment. It's nice to see Bernice back but again, she doesn't get a lot of screen-time.So, contrary to the poster, the three lead characters are bitter businessman Geoff (Reece Shearsmith), murderous butcher Hilary (Mark Gatiss) and malapropic pervert Herr Lipp (Steve Pemberton). On the surface, you can see why they were chosen; no one could argue that Hilary and Lipp aren't examples of surreal dark humour, even if Geoff feels like a bit of an odd inclusion in that case. But these aren't characters we want to spend very long with. They make us laugh uncomfortably but because they only briefly appear, we feel safe. To give them leading roles therefore- particularly when in one scene Lipp is looking after the children of 'Steve Pemberton'- makes us want to turn off. We don't want to see the cuddly side of Herr Lipp; it's like having the Teletubbies swear. Lipp did have some pathos as a character, as we saw in the Christmas Special, but this was because he was a pathetic slave to his desires and we had the relief of Shearsmith playing the teenager Lipp lusts for. The fact that he was a paedophile was neevr questioned so why has he suddenly converted into an angel?Whilst it is nice to see the secondary characters get their chance to 'shine',casual viewers (and I suspect most fans) want to see the iconic characters. For me, The League of Gentlemen works best when the characters are in pairs or trios, as the chemistry of the actors is what really makes the show. I understand that they didn't want to put all their eggs in one basket, as the only main sketches where all three are used are the Denton family and Pauline/Mickey/Ross, and that being able to break away from the 'sketch show' format meant that we could see inhabitants who never encountered each other being forced to 'work together'. However the choice of characters doesn't really work; Hilary works within his secret club of 'special stuff' addicts and Lipp works with his gaggle of boys. Geoff does work outside of his workmates Brian and Mike, as we see in one of the better episodes of Series 3, but he's not very likable.Unlikeability runs throughout. The personas that Shearsmith, Gatiss and Pemberton choose to play as the writers are self-centred money-grabbing writers. This only serves to alienate the audience as they watch a film with the underlying fear that the whole film really is a cynical cash-in. and without wishing to be rude, seeing the writers breaks the illusion that Royston Vasey's inhabitants are different individuals.Some of the positive reviewers have argued that the film shows the depth of TLOG and that people simply wanted their favourite characters and a load of catchphrases. That may be true of Series Three, which manages to show the humanity of the monsters in a cruelly funny way. But the 'depth' that the film gives is a false one, adding extra layers that mean nothing.In a rather odd interlude between Royston Vasey and London, we get a fictional seventeenth century comedy horror film that is the writers fictional new project. Geoff gets stuck in this film for a bit and it feels as if this section is simply stuck in to bulk out the thin and hard-to-work premise and to tick off the horror allusions that TLOG like to put in. Uncharacteristically for TLOG, it's just not funny.Perhaps the weak comedy is because the writers were under pressure to make a 'comedy film'; a diverting amusement that we see because we crave the familiarity of our favourite comedy show. However TLOG used various types of humour: surreal, dark, cruel, satire, gross-out. The film can't decide what type of humour to go for so the writers plump for the eternal crowd-pleaser: toilet humour. this does provide some humorous lines, such as the iconic 'brown fish', but this jars with the metafictional clever-cleverness and the tacked-on pathos. At times it feels as if the whole thing is just toilet humour- quite literally when a singing toilet appears at one point. Of course, this gross element was always part of the show but it was more occasional and its satirical aspect justified its presence. If you want to see a LOG film, the Christmas Special is the best example. This film feels like somebody else's version of TLOG, as if somebody who'd watched one episode was explaining the humour to their friend. As fans know, the real nature and charms of TLOG are inexplicable.

The popular television series 'The League of Gentlemen' is given a bit of a face lift, here, as it launches onto the big screen. Unfortunately it's a very, very bumpy landing.Nothing seems right in this film right from the beginning. The character introductions are made obvious as each one is separately introduced in a way the writers feel are unique but people familiar with the show will already recognise them whilst, I thought, there wasn't enough there for the people who DON'T know them. The beginning was unfunny, not scary and was rather immature. In fact, the entire opening half an hour was just gross and extremely bland.I feel the writers went in completely the wrong direction with the whole concept for this film, because it doesn't work. The fact the characters are coming out of their world and into ours is a silly idea and it just feels like a poor man's 'Last Action Hero'. A few things I like about the TV series is the fact it's rather random, the character's stories entwine and the humour was rather dark. In the film, the humour is though it's aimed at 13 year olds, the story is terrible and it's just not funny. I would've expected better.A lot of the scenes are random and unfunny with ridiculous occurrences happening such as one character (literally, a character) writing himself into another programme the writers have written and the film taking an alternate route into 18th century England or whenever it was. Are we watching this as a film? Or are we just witnessing the creator's attempt at trying to market a new idea.I really couldn't get into this film. It's repetitive, dull, nothing much funny actually happens and my favourite characters from the TV series were hardly in the film at all. What the makers should have done is taken a leaf out of the 'South Park' creators' ideas. Make one long episode and set it in the town with a load of entwining stories, whilst at the same time creating some new boundaries of humour like South Park did when they made America and Canada go to war with one another.This was very disappointing and I would not recommend it, especially not to the fans of the TV series.

Now i know a lot of people thought that this film was just a flop but i didn't.it had some great lines and acting.i did however thought the cameos were limited.the idea is great so if you are a fan of the series then its definitely for you :):):):)it brings out the more dark side of the league of gentlemens and shows they can write a horror film if they wanted to.I don't understand why people don't like this film as i found it rather enjoyable but then again I'm a fan of the series. So if you fancy a night in with a decent film don't get this until you've seen the series as you may not understand the characters as well as fans do. its a great film all along.

I can not believe that anyone let this get to the cinema. The jokes(those that there are) are dull and without any kind of wit. Its not scary, its not sickening, and it is not even interesting. A waste of time and just goes to show the joke has worn very thin indeed. Many people say a film has not plot but really this one doesn't. The first ten minutes make no sense and bare no relation to the rest of the film, and after the first hour of the film which leaps from one idea to the next, you hit the final part of the film. The ending will there is no ending as such. The final 25 minutes would be interesting in its bizarreness if there was any kind of wit or imagination involved. It copies various other films but it ensure that the view is in on the joke it leads you by the hand and points everything out for you. Dull and boring. Avoid like the plague.