Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

solszew-1 Harold Pinter's brilliant early play-on-film, The Birthday Party, is one of his best efforts, and perhaps, with The Homecoming, the pinnacle of the Theater of the Absurd. The plot itself is simple. Two men come to visit Stanley, a classical pianist who has, for unknown reasons, left his home and is staying with a provincial couple. He is visited by Shamus McCann (Patrick McGee) and Nat Goldberg (Sydney Tafler). They alternately celebrate and menace Stanley, who may or may or may not know them. Nothing is clearly stated. Most of the dialogue consists of insinuations and vague threats. Performances across the board are outstanding, with Robert Shaw outdoing himself as Stanley Weber. Moultrie Keisall as Petey is excellent but understated, and his final words really put the cherry on the birthday cake. (sorry for the pun). Nothing I can say can communicate the unique strangeness and power of this film. Top marks, 5 stars, classic.

coxaca I remember stumbling across this movie on late-night TV many years ago and being utterly enthralled. I was familiar with Robert Shaw, who now rates as one of my favourite character actors - think of his work in "Jaws" and "The Hireling", among others - and I recognised Patrick Magee from Kubrick movies and Dandy Nicols from "Till Death Us Do Part". But I had never heard of Harold Pinter, and I was simply blown away by his script, the acting, and the originality of this movie's overall vision.Of course, "The Birthday Party" is a fairly straight filming of a stage play, and so it lacks many of the unique pleasures of the cinematic experience. But there is still much here to interest lovers of film. There is terrific use of darkness and light, a sparse yet perfectly judged soundtrack, odd angles, close-ups, and highly effective editing and pacing. Everything adds up to create an unparalleled atmosphere of claustrophobia, menace, and dread. I feel this must have been Pinter's intention for the play, and yet that's probably just because Friedkin's interpretation feels so "right" that I can't imagine it any other way -surely an indication that this is a successful realisation of Pinter's drama.I can well imagine why this film would be lost on many. There is nothing solid for the viewer to grasp - no background, no real sense of time or place (well, OK, it's set in a British seaside boarding house), no explanation for the sudden intrusion of the two visitors. And there is virtually no plot, just maddeningly circuitous dialogue which only serves to mystify. Yet this is the whole point. Nothing is really explained, any clues thrown our way turn out to be misleading, we know something sinister and complex is happening yet we remain locked out. Thus do the playwright and his director build in us a sense of foreboding and (to borrow a phrase from Bret Easton Ellis) "nameless dread". There is high drama, momentous and awful things are happening before us, yet we cannot begin to understand the why's and wherefores.Some brilliant touches: the artless snare-drum solo, rising to an insane climax then stopping abruptly (heard at several crucial turning-points in the movie); the newspaper-tearing sequence, so laboured, so pointless, yet perfectly defining the character played by Magee (especially when he snarls "LEAVE THAT!" as Nicols tries to clean up his neatly laid-out strips of torn newsprint); the absurd, unbelievable, yet extraordinarily intense characterisations of the main players. In this respect especially, Sidney Tafler's performance is a revelation.It's quite a unique cinematic experience, highly original, fascinating and menacing in a way I've never seen before or since in a movie. For this reason I hold "The Birthday Party" in very high esteem and wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone interested in experiencing something a little different from any other movie they've watched.

lancaster2778 As one of this world's more zealous Robert Shaw fans, I feel obliged to put this gem in every once in a while and follow Shaw's every move. I must say, this film amazes me; it confounds me every time. There's only one emotion that overwhelms my passion for Mr. Shaw's gift in front of the camera--irritation--and it's aimed right straight at the storyline. You will find yourself wondering what's going on and why, as the actors' performances blind you with their shabby, touching directness. Don't let the story creep and seep too far into your brain. The story will cloud your ability to appreciate what this film is full of--brilliant, golden performances. They all shine, especially Shaw as poor Stanley. I enjoy watching films that take me to England in the 60s. The surroundings are dreary and depressing and totally marvelous. This film is well worth seeing; but, once again, I warn you--ignore the story; adore the actors! Oh, and an extra bonus (for what it is worth)-- After watching this film, you'll never look at a newspaper the same way again, I guarantee you. Enjoy!

Tom May I must say I will take a little umbrage at the meagre critical reception this film has got; it seems to have largely been just written off as "well acted, *but* not suited/adapted to film". I would have to say it's a good thing to try and broaden the audience for what is undeniably a fine play in my opinion, by making a film. The film sticks very closely to the dramatic text, and it's a critical truism to say that the immediacy of theatre performance is lost. It may well be that Pinter is particularly good on stage (certainly judging by a recent run of "The Collection" that I saw in September), but he's also been very effective cinematically, in the adaptations of "The Servant" and "Accident". This is certainly a more constrained film than "Accident", and a little more so than the claustrophobic "The Servant"; one could say the director and others involved with the film are playing it safe, but that's no problem really, as the formula was excellent to begin with. Certain exterior shots do add a lot I feel, as does the subtle, suggestive opening in the car. For a film as "theatrical" as this is claimed to be, it has good camera sense, and handles the dialogue neatly. The scene where it shifts to monochrome in the dark light I did like. I feel that the scotched, grim, mundane colour stock of the film is certainly in tune with the play and the though.Most important perhaps, in a performance of Pinter on film, are the performances, and I must declare them to be excellent and overlooked. Robert Shaw, an actor I always enjoy ("A Man for all Seasons" and "From Russia With Love" making up a decidedly contrasting threesome of Shaw films I've seen...), is proficient as Webber, the absurd "mystery man" laying low in a seaside boarding house. Most impressive to my mind though, are Dandy Nichols, Patrick Magee and Sydney Tafler. Nichols certainly plays the darkly hilarious role of the unknowing, deluded Meg to a veritable tee. Magee and Tafler define the roles of Goldberg and McCann, the sinister, well-versed double-act, to such an extent that I'll definitely think of them in the roles from now on, when I think of the play. Magee is a foreboding, but often unwittingly droll presence in the film, timing his acting brilliantly. His Irish tones contrast finely with Goldberg's sophisticated Jewish-London accent. Tafler is an absolute marvel in this role, walking away with the film in many ways, embellishing another elusive, odd Pinter character, the most erudite in the play. He fills the screen amply and times the dialogue perfectly; a stunning performance, by a somehow obscure actor. The chap who played Petey Boles is also good, in a small but certainly necessary part.Of course, one unfamiliar with Pinter may be bemused by the oddball plot, struggle to come up with instant meanings and then describe it as weird and incoherent, as if those were bad things... Of course, it isn't truly incoherent; there are meanings and interpretations to be made if one pays close attention to the dialogue. And it is the dialogue, that, as ever with Pinter, dazzles. Suffice to say, I am not truly in a position to analyze and describe why his dialogue is so brilliant in a mere film review such as this is, but trust me, his dialogue is remarkable; making the banal seem rich and sinister, and the rich seem banal and ritualistic (in Goldberg's case). A worthy effort really, this film, I'd say, as it captures so much of the Pinter brilliance.Rating:- ****/*****