A Man for All Seasons

Superbly acted, tightly directed, clear, witty, and less stiff than most British costume dramas.

Splendid, consistent, conscientious, real, and perfectly stoic, just like its hero. Scofield, with that inimitable voice, is perfect in one of the most exquisitely controlled performances ever filmed. Hurt was a real find, perfectly despicable as he grasps blindly for a conscience, and Hiller lends the right note of gruff acidity to balance her almost maddeningly even-keeled husband. Beautifully shot, and makes wonderful use of the outdoors. But Scofield is, as he should be, its chief glory.

Surprisingly interesting movie about Thomas More standing up to the King for the rights of holy matrimony. I absolutely adored the setting and the acting in this movie because, from what I understand of the timeframe, it's incredibly realistic. Wonderful.

Great play, excellent performances, but the direction is a little too cautious and careful.

Great acting and leisurely pace allows for deep and interesting characters. The story however, in order to make the biggest impression, submits itself to the classic rules with a clear cut between the good, the bad and the ugly and an inevitable fatum.

Another superb entry in Zinnemann's oeuvre. While a few roles can be spotty, the ones of importance are captivating.

Well-made, refined production is highlighted by a distinguished cast (many of whom in their early careers) and still relevant subject matter about conscience vs public/peer opinion. Perhaps it is a little too low-key for its own good, and contains some dialogue scenes which are long and windy, but Scofield's portrait of nobility, Hiller's shrewish, multi-faceted portrait of exasperation, and (especially) McKern's devious beauracrat maintain interest.

The best compliment I can give this film is that no matter how much I wanted to hate it, it was still gripping and enjoyable to watch. The acting was a little forced but mostly very good and the pacing of the story unfolds perfectly. I can't help but have mixed feelings about the film's message though, since More's saintliness is shown more by contrast with the more despicable people in the film than on his own merits.

The true story of Sir Thomas Moore and his desperate struggle to be true to his king (Henry VIII) and to himself by refusing to sign the pledge refusing the authority of the Pope (I.e., to make Henry the head of the church so he could get a divorce and marry someone else). This film will make you think about beliefs you would be willing to give your life for.

# 729

Clean, correct and classic. Just how all films should be at least.

Expertly written and acted. Surprisingly entertaining.

Intense. A true work of art.

Yeah, the critics were right. It's a great movie. The plot summary makes it sound pretty dumb, but no man could make this movie sound good on paper. You simple need to watch it to understand.

Netflix

Great history lesson, decent movie...

So this is what Oscar bait looked like in 1966? It's really good Oscar bait though.

709

Not alot of action but great dialogue. A wondeful study of two very different men. Based on actual events, heady stuff and Scofield deserved his Oscar. I also thought Shaw was terrific as Henry VIII. Recommended.

Scofield is good and it's nice to see a young John Hurt, but this wasn't very exciting. I found it actually quite boring, but I was never a fan of this kind of history to begin with.

Intriguing meditation on law and the nature of human rights. Plus you have to love Paul Scofield's performance, and that scene he has with John Hurt about teaching

very clever dialogue, decent acting

Thomas More is a giant in this historical drama of the split of England from the Catholic church. Serene and steadfast, you root for him to stand his ground to the imperious Henry VIII. The rest of the movie pales in comparison to his performance. Beautifully shot, but staid and almost lifeless for a story set in a turbulent time.

Unusually high brow material for Zinnemann, and it's sort of stately, but mostly it leaves the impression of a rote prestige costume drama. Beyond Orson Welles, none of the cast seems to have any enthusiasm for their roles. I think a lot of stage theater is better experienced written than it is acted, either on the stage or adapted to film, because just the very hint of the theater sends actors into insufferably dull fits of self-indulgent pomposity.

83.500

İngiltere, krali basmabeyinci, angliganlik, katoliklik, mezhep degistirmemek, yemin etmemek, hukuk adami, mahkeme (son 20 dakika), idam (8. Henry abiyinin esiyle evlenmis fakat esinden çocuk sahibi olamamistir. Baska bir kadinla evlenmek ister fakat papalik kabul etmez. Henry kendi kilisesini kurar ve bir yasa cikarir. Halkinin da yemin ederek bu yasayi tanimasini ister. Fakat eski mabeyincisi bu yemini etmez. ve hapse atilir. SP finalde mahkemeye cikar. ve idam edilir. Davasinin adami olma

Probably a great movie -- but my parents dragged me to it in '66 when I was just a little kid. It bored me to death for two hours and then at the end traumatized me for life. I have never seen it as an Adult Person and I don't want to.

ugh

As Kevin Smith often says, this is porn for dialogue lovers.

This is the kind of stuffy period piece that gives period pieces a bad name. It all seems so phony, none of it comes off as genuine. A bunch of actors playing dress-up and doing that all huffy Royal Shakespeare Company kind of bullshit. For most of it I was quite bored. In the latter part of the film, it becomes a more interesting exploration of More's integrity... but who cares when the matter of integrity concerns which snatch the King buries his prick in? Not me.

Based on a superb play. I saw a new staging of it in 2008 with Frank Langhella in the main role and while he did a tremendous - and touching - job, Scofield is the man to beat. It must be said that even though I have a serious aversion to period dramas I was pretty much blown away. This is a gem.

"Prestigious, well turned out piece of British historical drama with enough genuine intrigue and wit to persuade some audiences they aren't watching a history lesson."

A good period piece. The script is delicious.

there're some great scenes (with great dialogue and tension); solid direction and screenplay; beatiful photography; More's honesty is remarkable, a true hero of the Catholic faith that stood for the Truth (his firm position exposes the unfaithfulness specially by clerics, Cardinals and churchman) - the unfaithfulness to the real teachings of the church is something that was present in the British Catholic church of that time, and it's also present in the Church today.

Passes the time.

Perfection Exists.

84.125

They made me sit through this film in grade school because it was about "history." Most boring snoozefest ever, and I'm saying this as someone who LIKES history films and documentaries. You have been warned.

more: there is no law against that. roper: there is! god's law! more: then god can arrest him. roper: sophistication upon sophistication. more: no, sheer simplicity. the law, roper, the law. i know what's legal not what's right. and i'll stick to what's legal. roper: then you set man's law above god's! more: no, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - i'm not god.

Superbly made and filmed, apparently very realistic in terms of historical accuracy, but also very dry.

If the particulars of Thomas More's crisis of conscience have little relevance now, it is his tenacity in the abstract that continues to compel, nearly 500 years after his death. And Paul Scofield ably portrays his obstinance and intelligence. But the film rarely rises far above "able". It's well-acted (a bit too much ranting, maybe), solidly directed, and nicely shot, with fine sets and costumes. It's just all a little dry, one of those Best Picture winners that's "important" but not exciting.

733

A very theatrical film about a conflict between Henry VIII and Thomas More. Brilliant film about convictions and politics.

Stuffy, dry, and, for the most part, poorly acted and directed. It's as if each actor was given one objective and told to hammer that into the ground, most of them overacting along the way. The only bright spot is Orson Welles' performance, and, of course, he only has around five minutes of screen time. It's like a history lecture on film, and not even a correct history lesson. The real Thomas More was nowhere near as saintly as this film would have you believe.

A convincing piece of historical fiction with some philosophical depth. Great casting, costumes, dialog, settings, themes. Has many memorable scenes including the logistics of boating around London which was novel to see in a film. There is some historical inaccuracy and it gets a bit dry from time to time. The characters lack significant arcs, but have well defined motivations and some depth which made their interactions interesting.

#790

The script is tight as can be, and there are top performances all around, with notable accolades to an up and coming John Hurt, who is slowly becoming one of my favorite actors.

Upper-echelon content-bound tragedy with Machiavelli and a gadfly. Moral, but devious, delicious.