Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

jonrosling Emerging as one of the first of the British New Wave, Look Back In anger was actually pipped to the cinema screen in 1959 by Room At The Top.But what it loses for tardiness it makes up for in having claim to the original Angry Young Man in the form of Richard Burton, here giving an oft critiqued performance as Jimmy Porter, a working class university graduate who has chosen a life less than one would expect with his education. Working a street stall in the market he lounges the remainder of his days away in dingy digs with his wife, Allison, played here by Mary Ure in a performance that was to somewhat bizarrely reflect her own life in later years.Burton's Jimmy is certainly angry, and cruel with it, launching it verbal tirade after verbal tirade against his wife, held in check only by market partner and friend Cliff (Gary Raymond). Breaking into their claustrophobic existence come Allison's friend, Helena (Claire Bloom, who urges her to break free from the psychological hammering and return to the middle class comfort of her parents' home. This she eventually does, taking her unborn baby with her - only for Helena and Jimmy to get together and fall in love. You can't help but think throughout that Jimmy is retreading the same path with Helena - that what starts as a lovey-dovey affair will inevitably end up as the dysfunctional melodrama that Allison was made to endure.Tony Richardson does great work here, exacting the kind of performances that are needed from Ure, Bloom and Raymond. Richard Burton';s performance is often criticized as being too melodramatic, too over the top but I felt that Richardson held back from toning down the actor too allow him to make the broader, thematic point, to demonstrate not only the working class frustration from the era but also the sense of loss of belonging and purpose that was beginning to shine through British society as it's Empire fell away and as British power declined post-Suez. Indeed the idea of a "Great" Britain fading into history is neatly summed up by Allison's father, a retired Colonel who served his time in India up until independence in 1947, who marks that event as the beginning of the end for his world, for all of their worlds. "We had a good time, living" says Edith Evans character Ma Tanner as she lays flowers on the grave of her dead husband, as if she is remembering not only her long dead love, but also her love for what went before the war, as if that were a time when individuals as well as nations had a purpose that they were true to, however simple that purpose was.Oswald Morris cinematography deserves credit too, establishing a gritty look and feel that was much mimicked in kitchen-sink dramas in the early 1960s. He sits back from the interior action but not too far, allowing us to feel the cramped, coffin-like feel of Jimmy and Allison's flat; his camera work outside captures the raw feel of 1950s working class streets and industrial cities. The lighting and staging of the final scenes in the railway station is simply beautiful, an interplay of light, shadows and steam that makes even Brief Encounter look tame.Overall Look Back In Anger captures a snapshot of Britain at the cusp of immense change. The anger of people like Jimmy, fed the cultural and social revolution of the following twenty years and I've read reviews on here that say argue this dates this film beyond any modern relevance. I would disagree - and even argue that what we need is a film like this now (2013) to show the frustration, the pent up anger and the broad social disarray that Britain is falling into in the post-modern era.

classicsoncall Relentlessly depressing, "Look Back in Anger" offers Richard Burton somewhat miscast as a twenty five year old university graduate who spends virtually all of his time railing against his wife, his surroundings and his place as a member of Britain's working class of the 1950's. It would be a misnomer to classify this picture as entertainment; it's harsh and dreary, and except for Mom Tanner (Edith Evans), there aren't any genuinely likable characters here. One could make a case for Alison Porter (Mary Ure), lovely to look at most of the time, but completely subjugated to the tyrannical rants of her husband. The shocker of course was how easily Helena (Claire Bloom) replaced her in the squalid scheme of things, and one never gets a sense of what attracts her to the lout that she had no use for in the first place. It seemed like a plot device to make us hate Jimmy (Burton) even more, as if he wasn't doing a pretty good job of having us hate him all by himself.

Xikar Outstandingly written and directed movie, that many people simply won't like. It has some overly acted scenes but is easily understood if you know the actors' style. The passion that they portray in this movie seems overdone, but still amazing. At times, it's confusing, illogical and angry but again, amazing. Regardless, I could hardly wait to see what would happen next. There's jealously, sex, infidelity and death. Some of which is way ahead of it's time in 1959.Angry was Burton. Reviewing movies just to write for the negatives in their reviews, like EdwardC, (37), all reviews are one star except two, is similar to the role Burton was playing.

EdwardCarter Richard Burton, the worst actor of all time, overacts like never before in this dated crapfest. Burton, a wooden film actor who just copied Laurence Olivier, shouts his way through the entire film as he always did. Despite being from a working class background he could never portray working class characters convincingly. As if that were not bad enough, at 33 he was far too old to play Jimmy Porter. They mention that Jimmy is only 25, well Burton looked early 40s due to his alcoholism and chain smoking. Such a pity that they had to cast a far too old Burton, a graduate of the shouting school of acting, instead of Kenneth Haigh, star of the original acclaimed West End version. At least Haigh would only have been 27 at the time of filming, easily able to pass for 25. The whole story is uninteresting, dated and irrelevant.