Movie Stats:
Released 1966 (USA)
British, in English
Director – Fred Zinnemann (who last brought us From Here to Eternity)
Stars – Paul Scofield, Leo McKern, Robert Shaw
Plot Summary:
A film about Sir Thomas More (Scofield), the lord,
councilor, and great friend of Henry VIII (Shaw), who opposed the King’s
divorce of his first wife and subsequent remarriage. McKern co-stars as the
dastardly Lord Chancellor [Thomas] Cromwell.
Bad Stuff:
I found a lot of this movie confusing, and I have a
very strong grasp of British history in general and of the events surrounding
Henry’s divorce(s) in specific. I can only imagine how bewildering it would be for someone who hasn’t read much British history. Also, I found it particularly annoying
that they referred to Cromwell only by his last name throughout the whole film,
leading someone with a casual grasp of history to believe that it was Oliver
Cromwell when really it was his great-great granduncle Thomas (in fact, Oliver
wasn’t born for another 60+ years after the events of this film).
Shaw’s acting was awful.
I winced every time he was on screen. Fortunately, he’s not in the film a whole
lot.
The atrocious mustache of John Hurt, who played the
sycophant Richard Rich (that was a real person’s name, if you can believe it).
Good Stuff:
The costumes were great. Also, when I was doing a little
research into the historical figures of this movie after the fact, I was
surprised to see how closely many of the actors resembled the people they
played.
Apart from Shaw, there were some really fine performances,
most notably Scofield and McKern.
[SPOILER IF YOU DON’T KNOW YOUR HISTORY] The scene in the
Tower toward the end, where More says goodbye to his family, was truly gut-wrenching.
It made me cry. As hard as it was to watch, it was my favorite scene. Great
acting.
The Verdict:
Let’s be honest. While there’s nothing wrong with this film, it’s two hours of guys arguing about whether
or not another guy can get divorced. I get why it was a big deal at the time,
way back in the 1500s, especially since it split England from the Church, but
nowadays it’s kind of like, “Ho hum.” This movie was boring. I’m not sure why
it won, although it doesn’t appear to have had a whole lot of competition (“The
Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming”? Seriously? That movie is
terrible and now a complete, utter relic of the Cold War. I can’t believe it
was nominated for Best Picture.)
Anyway, boring movies get low ratings, no matter how good the acting may be. For that reason, I give it 2.5 stars.
2 comments:
I missed a crucial assignment in twelfth grade English and watched this film to make up for it. I actually liked it at the time. I felt very mature and smart taking in such a film. But I bet it was boring then, too.
While driving today, I was thinking about this movie. It occurred to me that, in addition to being a movie about whether a guy could get divorced or not, it was also a movie about a man holding true to his convictions despite enormous pressure to give them up. That made me think about how politicians today will give up their convictions for just about anything, and that's sad.
For me, it doesn't make the movie any less boring, but it was an interesting thought.
Post a Comment