Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

TheLittleSongbird Of course it is flawed, some of the business propositions are ludicrous, and there have been times when the narration has become extremely annoying. Still, Dragon's Den is very interesting to watch. I like the fact that the dragons are straight talking and know what they're talking about, and as a presenter, Evan Davis does have a certain likability about him when he is not annoying that is. Over the years, we have been treated to a number of great inventions, and some hilariously ludicrous ones too. It is also very interesting learning more about how a business is run and all that.All in all, a perfectly watchable reality show, of course with flaws, but very interesting. 8/10 Bethany Cox

freemantle_uk I am not a fan of reality TV, but I do really enjoy Dragons' Den. I concept of the show is simple, budding entrepreneurs pitch there business ideas to the Dragons, all of them leading business people, and offer a percentage of there company in exchange for investment. Some of the people who go onto the show have poor idea or just do not think things thought and it is entertaining watching the Dragons rip them to pieces. However, there are some people who do have good ideas and get the investment there need, such as the man who created Reggae Reggae sauce and the Watford goalkeeper Richard Lee for his shop Dr. Cap. There are also people who have good ideas but do not get the investment they want, normally because the Dragons make them an offer that is unacceptable or there is a hole in the pitch. People who do the best in the show are ones who have a good safety invention or show that there company is already profitable.The reason why I summarise this program as X Factor for the Middle Classes because people watch it to see people get humiliated, especially the arrogant people and want to see conflict. But there are clever people who come up with very good ideas and Dragons' Den is an interesting program and does show an aspect to how the business world works.

bs3dc Dragon's Den is a welcome relief in the constant scheduling of the usual type of reality show where people generally people sit around whining and/or swearing for no apparent purpose. The idea is that contestants come to a panel of five 'dragons' (highly successful business people) with a project or concept that they hope to get some investment in. The programme focuses on the business pitch and the reaction of the 'dragons'. It is a strong concept, offering an insight into the way that companies start up and hopefully encourages talented individuals into taking the plunge and setting up for themselves, a class of people that the UK lacks at the moment.However it keeps in the cruelty that the British are so fond of (how else could someone like Simon Cowell become so popular?). Much of the berating is deserved as some contenders try to get hundreds of thousands of pounds for a small fraction of their tiny company whilst being completely clueless about such simple things as their turnover or net profit, but it often comes across as arrogant rich people ridiculing the dreams of ambitious entrepreneurs. The ridiculous nature of some of the products suggests that either screening applicants was limited or they were let through just for the dubious entertainment value of 'the Dragons' making fun of them. The comments are often unnecessarily barbed instead of constructive, and while this is defended as 'cruel to be kind' frequently it sounds more like the panel are trying to outdo each other to get themselves on the trailer. Some of the panel appear a lot more helpful than others, like Richard Farleigh who usually had some good advice for the contestants who were unsuccessful, while Theo Paphitis comes across as the most shrewd of the bunch.Apparently Peter Jones is leaving which is not much of a loss as recently he has seemed more interested in boosting his ego and trying to be funny than investing - shame he is about as amusing as a documentary about the Holocaust. Lately also the panel seems to be extremely cautious, almost always refusing to take on a project by themselves, instead trying to get a partnership with another Dragon, which takes away from their supposedly bold entrepreneurial nature. The programme has also declined in quality recently due to the editing which allows you to predict which ideas will get investment by the running order and removes most of the tension. The annoyingly insistent commentary by Evan Davis repeating the rules of show and everything that has just gone on in the show also detracts from the viewer's enjoyment.

bob the moo A group of self-made millionaires sit on a panel with individual stacks of their own money at their disposal. One by one, inventors, small businesses, entrepreneurs and the occasional nut come to the panel to pitch an investment opportunity to them. As the Dragons get their teeth into the potential and the detail of the offer, some are rejected, some are talked down to a compromise deal and some have the dragons fighting over them.I watched this the other week because the Guardian often has pieces that refer to it, saying how much fun it is. OK so it is another form of reality show but the business element offered the potential that it would be not just another show where a panel tears a strip out of happy-go-lucky members of the public. After watching one or two episodes though I found it vaguely interesting but a lot less entertaining and engaging than I had hoped. In a way it is interesting to see the ideas (good and bad) paraded in front of the panel and occasionally I find the debate and questioning enjoyable. However too often it is tiresome and obvious with the panellists milking their "tough edge" too much and saying more than needs to be said without actually adding much value to the show. It isn't all their fault though because the show also feels very, very padded to try and make it to the hour running time.So we get recaps of stuff we only saw a few minutes ago and lots of reaction shots from the "Dragons" that clearly are inserted out of context to try and up the drama. Having Evan Davis wittering on doesn't help either; regularly we have a section where one of the Dragons reject a project because the maths don't stand up, only for it to be followed by Davis narrating "the Dragons' have rejected the project because the maths don't stand up" – as if somehow the audience zoned out for a second there. I didn't like the way he had to keep calling them "Dragons" either, maybe you get used to it but it just sounded funny to me. The "contestants" are mostly worthy but perhaps not worthy enough to get the cash, some are idiots and these are scattered across the show to keep things lively for the audience who want blood as much as triumph. The panellists are so-so but are too tempted to play to caricature and not be "people". I watched some of the most recent series and it seemed to have be happening more and more with some of them.Overall then a reasonably interesting reality show but one that is padded and a bit too forced on regular occasions. I can see why some viewers like it but for me it was too little of interest spread thinly over too long a running time.