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.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Photoscots1 . I've always liked this film since I first saw it in the late 1970's. There are so many interesting aspects of this movie from the dandified dialogue to the cartoon inserts which are done in the style of Victorian illustrators of the day.A lot of high caliber actors really shine with the material including David Hemmings with his highly strung manner, Trevor Howard who has the funniest scene in the film when he spanks Fanny Duberley and the Lord Lucan of Harry Andrews who is constantly at war with Lord Cardigan, both being related and despise each other. Even Geilgud shines as the confused Lord Raglan and his ineptitude in the role of commander really highlights the inadequacy of the British military of that age which, if you read the history books, were outclassed by the French management of their forces.The injustice of the class system is another facet of the film which really gets under the skin and leaves a lasting impression of the British Empire and the military which held it in place. This is particularly the case when one of the Sergeant Majors is flogged for being drunk on duty after Cardigan insists he spy on Nolan played by David Hemmings. All of this demonstrates the sort of internal politics that goes on within organizations but not just the military.The battle scenes are very impressive, especially the final charge of the Light Brigade and the explanation of how this failure in military decision making occurred, is made perfectly clear. Cinematography is first rate and the overall art direction delightful. One of the great anti-war movies largely under appreciated by the movie going public of the 60's and has gained much more respect in recent years when compared with the dross being put out today.

denis888 Awful movie. Just plainly awful. I do not know even where to begin. The whole feeling is set wrong, from the very beginning, with all its silly and utterly unnecessary cartoon segues, the film takes a wrong pace and never gets it right. The thick British accents are at least tiresome, and often they sound false. OK, maybe this is how the filmmakers wanted to show the false atmosphere of the upper class people, maybe. Nut it is all so overwrought and exaggerated that it serves all the wrong course. Vanessa Redgrave may be sweet there but never captivating. Two endless hours linger and drag till the war begins. And then, huge laughs begin. I never laughed so out loud as when I saw the way they depicted Russian army, and especially Cossack cavalry. Man, those uniforms, those hats, those lancets! Where did they get them? I wonder whey they didn't put bears in ushankas on bikes with jugs of vodka galore. Russian army was not clad like this, and was not behaving like this. The battles are one endless scream and then, most inappropriately, fun. This is so - the battles are simply sunny to watch, as the film crew fails to deliver real suspense and pain. Even the charge at the end is very fragmentary and badly cut. Russians never speak like this and the wording is all wrong. I am ending on one note - this is pathetic mess. Never watch it.

dbowtell Sometimes man is prone to reach for the stars, like Icarus he flies too high and falls short of his intentions. And, essentially this is what appears to happen in this story. Tony Richardson creates an ensemble of who's who of top British actors (in the 1960s), creates epic sets, and uses a massive amount of film, but the fundamental problem is that the thread of the story is not well bound into a cohesive narrative.Richardson tries to show us too much. It's as if he's spent so long setting up the scenes that he wants to show us how clever he was by showing everything. Part of this is to show how messy, chaotic and unglamourous war is, but if ever a director was to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut it would appear to be the case. One other reviewer has remarked to this extent, and I couldn't agree more. Some scenes are shot without dialogue, but would be tighter, more effective with a simple line and less lingering shots, for example when some of the men are dying of dysentery Hemmings gives his water can to a fellow cavalryman, he goes to drink from his canteen and then throws it away in disgust, which leaves the viewer uncertain if Hemmings character was worried about dysentery (and knew of the water born bacteria he might catch), or was disgusted that his men were dying so horribly before they even got to fight. But it is as if Richardson at every turn is holding your head and saying "here are the horrors of war, here is the unglamourous finish of men, look and look till you can look no more", but by the end you can't care about the characters, the soldiers or cavalry. They all appear to be such unbalanced and largely unsympathetic characters that you rather feel they get what they deserved. Generally film does history rather badly, distorting events, character and narrative to suit it's own purpose. I'm sure that happens here, so don't be surprised, but I think that Richardson in the end bites off more than he can chew. He doesn't manage to distill the story that he's trying to tell, instead shows more and in the end dilutes the story.While the film has flaws there are things to be got out of the film. The dialogue appears to use the Victorian parlance, the sets, costumes and visuals are sumptuous (for the time), and shows much of how the Western armies operated at that time. Apparently Richardson decided that the critics would not be allowed to see a preview of the film for the reason that he did not think them intelligent enough to understand it. If this is the case, then why did he think that the viewing public at large would be better situated to appreciate it. I guess Richardson knew that his film was a lumbering historical epic from which he was incapable of pulling a strong story, the morass of historical detail bogging it down. Sad, but a glorious failure. Much like the story told.

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- The Charge of the Light Brigade, 1968, Mid Victorian England circa 1854 vividly contrasts the silliness of aristocracy and the squalor of lower classes. The film's bride innocently displays her primness and naiveté. Shows the context for the British empire in this time of that day.*Special Stars- Trevor Howard, Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, Harry Andrews, Jill Bennett, David Hemmings.*Theme- British army teamwork can conquer overwhelming odds. But sometimes the battlefield gives out no justice.*Trivia/location/goofs- British, 3500 historic uniforms made for this film. Clever use of animated news cartoons to tell the diplomatic & military positions in this story.*Emotion- A visually beautiful film of color, sounds, and action. Lead military men are driven by arrogance, ineptitude, and overzealousness. There is no humor or glory in the final charge that is a testament to military blind obedience and realism. Gives you more history on the famous poem of that Victorian imperial era. I got a chance to view this film just recently. I had not known about it before this date. I fully enjoy these types of films, costume dramas within a historical background. I liked Micheal Caine's first film, "Zulu". I am a history buff of the Napoleonic Wars like the TV show "Sharpes' Rifles" and "Horacio Hornblower". This lush and colorful film is wonderfully casted by the English movie greats. Today we will never see the likes of this film casting again. The history of this film might be somewhat trivial but the drama of the war's situations is tragically shown in this film. I enjoyed it. The tone of this film is seen as 'anti-war' with it's playing up the absurdities of Victorian culture over the back drop of the seriousness of war.