Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 31 May 1944 by Independent Film Distributors, Ltd. Made by Archers Film Productions, Ltd. London. Released in the U.S. by Eagle-Lion Films, Inc. New York opening at the Beacon on a double bill with The Woman in the Hall: 22 January 1949 (sic). U.S. release: 13 May 1944. U.K. release through Eagle-Lion: 1944. Australian release through G-B-D/20th Century-Fox: 13 February 1947 (sic). Running times: 124 minutes (U.K.), 93 minutes (U.S.A.), 91 minutes (Australia). The full U.K. version is available on both a Criterion and an ITV DVD. Criterion has a number of extras.SYNOPSIS: "The Glue Man" is on the rampage, terrorizing young women in a small village near Canterbury. He is finally brought to book through the efforts and resourcefulness of a furloughing U.S. army sergeant.NOTES: Only movie appearance of John Sweet, a real wartime army sergeant who presumably went back to his peacetime job as a schoolteacher in Ohio. According to Powell, the U.S. version — unlike the Australian — was not just a cut-down of the English release print. Additional sequences — there was one on a skyscraper — "were put in afterwards as a desperate attempt to sell it." This film seems to have disappeared. The review below is based on the complete Criterion DVD print. COMMENT: Unsuccessful in its day — even though made by Britain's top box-office production team — "A Canterbury Tale" is definitely one for indulgent, or should we say "sentimental" or perhaps "historically inclined" and certainly "nostalgic" connoisseurs. There is so much in it that would irritate or put off your average moviegoer or even your dedicated film fan. The corduroy set and the cultists are advised to give the movie a big miss. Many will see the film as an uneasy compromise between Art on the one hand, Propaganda and Entertainment on the other.My own problem with "A Canterbury Tale" is that the blatant propaganda is laid on with far too heavy a trowel. However true-to- life he may be, Sweet emerges more as a caricature than as a real human being with real human feelings. He's basically a comic cliché. Yet we are asked not to laugh at him, but to sympathize. I sometimes found this hard to do, partly because of over-heavy writing and partly because of over-heavy acting. Fortunately for me, the other players struck the right chords — particularly Sheila Sim, who never gave a more engaging performance. Also the film is nothing if not beautifully made. Superbly photographed, atmospherically scored and often strikingly directed.

TrappedInTheCinema https://trappedinthecinemablog.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/a- canterbury-tale-1944-%E2%98%85%E2%98%85%E2%98%85%E2%98%85/Very loosely inspired by Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales', Powell and Pressburger's wartime drama 'A Canterbury Tale' (1944) was made during one of the most extraordinary consecutive directorial 'runs' ever: 'One of Our Aircraft Is Missing' (1942), 'The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp' (1943), 'A Canterbury Tale' (1944), 'I Know Where I'm Going!' (1945), 'A Matter of Life and Death' (1946), 'Black Narcissus' (1947), and 'The Red Shoes' (1948). All seven of them are British classics. And A Canterbury Tale is no different.The film opens with a Chaucerian knight, trekking through a forest on horseback, who lets free a bird of prey. And then, in a truly extraordinary moment of cinema, the swooping bird becomes a WW2 aircraft, and the knight becomes a tank. Technology and people have developed and 600 years of history have past.It is a remarkable moment of both magic and originality. It is also indicative of how under-appreciated Powell and Pressburger are. This scene has been forgotten from the public consciousness – never even remembered in the first place – yet when Stanley Kubrick referenced this moment in '2001: A Space Odyssey' (1968) with a bone spinning in mid-air and becoming a spaceship (similarly indicating the passage of time and the development of technology), he is acclaimed as a genius for his originality.The rest of the tale leaves behind any Chaucerian plot, but does keep the tendency for eccentric characters. A small town near Canterbury is being terrorised by "the glueman", a mysterious man who pours glue over women's hair at night. There is probably a reference to a particular Chaucerian character here, which sadly went straight over my head.Into this town arrives a US soldier who gets off at the wrong station, and a British woman from the city who has come to work as a land girl for the war effort. And as they begin to turn their attention to investigating the Scooby Doo-esque glueman, they find themselves caught up and encapsulated in the nature of English rural life.The film is a love letter to the English countryside, landscape, and pastoral life. Characters regularly take walks up hillsides, just to admire the views. The film shows rural life and its traditions in great detail, and with great affection. And we see Canterbury Cathedral, a permanence in the country for so many centuries.The war, meanwhile, is relegated to a mere subplot. This indicates exactly what Powell and Pressburger are trying to say. The war is an incidental feature. It does not obstruct any of the characters' lives. It is a mere passing inconvenience. In one hilltop scene characters discuss a remarkable view, but do not mention the dozens of barrage balloons which litter the sky. P&P – which they should never be referred to as – are telling us that England and English life will continue as it always has done, from 600 years ago in the medieval era, through the present era unaffected by world war, and forever into the future.On a side note, for those worried about their ignorance of Scotland and Scottish life, they dealt with that in their following film, I Know Where I'm Going! And for those worried about their ignorance of Wales and Welsh life, as far as I can tell, they didn't give a sh*t.Perhaps A Canterbury Tale lacks the same magical spark as the greatest of their works, A Matter Of Life Or Death, or The Red Shoes, for instance. But this in no way should be seen as a dismissive comment. A Canterbury Tale still contains some remarkable moments from a pair of remarkable directors, especially the moment that Stanley Kubrick clearly thought so highly of.

drystyx I didn't know what to expect from A CANTERBURY TALE. I rather thought (oh oh, I'm starting to talk like a bloke now, I am), I rather thought that it would be more along the lines of one of the boisterous tales, but instead we get the pilgrimage.And a tale that begins as a wild boisterous tale turns into one of the darker tales, but never loses its cheerfulness.It's very difficult to talk about this film without a spoiler. It's a mystery that is not only before its time, but still before its time. Other such mysteries have been done, but none are as far in the future as this one is.But I don't mean to mislead you. It's still set in the late days of World War II, for all intents and purposes on the road to Canterbury. It begins as a whimsical Andy Hardy style mystery, but beneath, we suspect more, then the camaraderie and atmosphere of the folk people disarm us. And later our suspicions are aroused again.Portman, as the benevolent caretaker Culpepper character, plays the opposite character of the evil Nazi he portrayed so well in THE 49TH PARALLEL, and strangely enough, the fields and working people are very similar to the major part of the u boat film, in the Christian commune. Portman had great range as an actor. Here, he is a shepherd character.I would love to say more without spoiling the film, but don't dare. It flows very well, and has a magic quality about it.

Graham Greene There are a number of ways that you can interpret A Canterbury Tale (1944) and a number of things to look out for in order to enrich the overall experience. For me, it remains one of the finest British films of the last half-century, mixing elements of satire, detective fiction, romance and magical-realism to create a lingering and atmospheric work that forgoes any such generic storytelling concerns, and indeed, the more recognisable ideas of narrative, to instead create an experience for the viewer that works simply as a result of the feeling that is created by the contrast between the characters and the subject matter. On an entirely immediate level, the film can be seen as subtle comment on the futility of war; an idea given a greater sense of creative credence by the fact that it was produced at a time when the war was still raging. As ever, Powell and Pressburger go against the accepted grain of the era, relinquishing any obvious elements of propaganda (as they did, quite controversially, with their preceding film, the equally satirical The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, 1943), and producing a film that on the one hand seems to be a laboured attempt to smooth out relations between American and British troops in the run up to the Normandy invasion, while on the other hand offering a ironic comment on the nature of war and that air of unspoken tragedy that punctuates the drama and makes the destruction and the devastation of war comprehendible on an entirely personal level.In keeping with this notion, the only battles shown in the film are those that involve the children of the village, acting out the supposed thrill of the battle in such a way as to make light of the inherent absurdities and childishness of it all. Likewise, the ending of the film, which seems to suggest the noble spirit of war, with its "Onward Christian Soldiers" and the allusions to the Canterbury Pilgrims - as uniformed men and boys march in procession through the streets - also ties in with the propaganda element, and yet, features a subtle-subversion on this same theme in a way that may have been missed by the majority of viewers at the time the film was released. Through Powell and Pressburger deny us the sight of any actual combat, they don't shy away from showing us the aftermath of the battle; with the sequences set within Canterbury itself making great use of the recent destruction of the Baedeker Raids of May and June, 1942; which itself suggests another theme of the film in the idea of history, or indeed, conservation. The film, in both design and presentation, is a veritable ode to the wonders of nature and the glorious, pastoral landscapes of rural England, rich in atmosphere and history. Again, it is that universal connection to time and place that binds the characters beyond the recognisable differences of nationality, gender and generation, informing the tone of the narrative and suggesting a further interpretation pertaining to the past (and of letting go of the past and embracing the present).These ideas are expressed most clearly in the character of the American soldier, played here by the real-life U.S. Sgt. John Sweet, with his slow, Dylan like-drawl and keen delivery going towards the creation of a character that is honest and entirely genuine in his thoughts. The filmmakers exploit the character and his relationship between the rest of the cast to make light of both the inherent differences and (indeed) similarities between the two cultures, in a way that is beneficial to the plot. Regardless, there is a real sense of warmth to the presentation of this character, due in part to the naturalistic performance from Sweet and the natural charm of the dialog. Unlike many popular presentations of Americans - particular American soldiers of this era - he is sensitive, sympathetic, dynamic, attuned to his surroundings and quietly heroic (on an entirely personal level). Again, he is perfectly counted by the fine performances of Eric Portman, Dennis Price and the lovely Sheila Sim who round out the cast with aplomb. There's also a great sense of warmth and pathos to these characters, moving from moments of light comedy to more affecting moments of drama and intuitive character observation as we return to that idea of the past and how the location binds the characters, regardless of their superficial differences.Throughout the film, the characters cling to old memories of people and places, never realising that there are experiences to be cherished in the here and now; even more so given the life and death implications of the war itself. These are incredibly weighty ideas being expressed in a film that was no doubt considered to be a silly little war-time romp when originally released, but can now be seen as one of the finest, most intelligent and repeatedly rewarding films ever released. Admittedly, it won't be to all tastes; as is often the case with the films of Powell and Pressburger there is no set genre here, with the reliance on character and atmosphere leading us away from such notions and instead towards something that can only be experienced. It is a film that relies mostly on the feeling that is transmitted between the film and the viewer and will be considered a success or a failure depending on how it leaves the audience with that final shot of the chiming bells of Canterbury Cathedral. You could perhaps argue that it lacks the imagination or epic-spectacle of the later films, like A Matter of Life and Death (1946) or The Red Shoes (1948) - still two of the greatest works of British cinema - but in my opinion A Canterbury Tale remains a minor masterpiece in its own right, and seems to be something of a thematic companion piece to director Michael Powell's earlier work, The Edge of the World (1937).