NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

TheLittleSongbird After watching the Terence Rattigan DVD collection (with most of the adaptations being from the 70s and 80s) when staying with family friends last year, Rattigan very quickly became one of my favourite playwrights and he still is. His dialogue is so intelligent, witty and meaty, his characterisation so dynamic, complex and real and the storytelling so beautifully constructed.'The Winslow Boy' is along with 'The Browning Version' and 'Separate Tables' one of Rattigan's best, containing all of the above and also showing his gift of giving his principal characters an emotional and psychological complexity in a real life situation (if not quite as much as 'The Browning Version'). This 1999 film is not as good as the 1970s version, with Alan Badel and Eric Porter, or especially the 1948 film (one of the definitive film adaptations of any of Rattigan's plays), but it is still very good with a lot to recommend.Rattigan is not easy to adapt, not necessarily the language but more how to get his themes across, how to maintain momentum in the dialogue when so dialogue heavy, the danger of being too stage bound and how to make the story (which may be to some somewhat slight and old-fashioned now) appeal to a more modern audience. Director David Mamet surprisingly overcomes all of those things here. Am saying surprisingly because this is an atypical effort for Mamet, where he usually touches upon darker and heavier subjects like con artists and their tricks and any kind of lowlife, so there was the worry as to whether he would be suited for so very different material.He not only directs with ease, with understanding of the style and near-perfect direction of his actors, but he also adapts Rattigan's script and does it in a way that's thought-provoking, literate, witty and emotionally powerful, sometimes tense. 'The Winslow Boy' is not quite perfect, though it is a film with little wrong with it. Rattigan's insights into class, society and hypocrisy was brought out more strongly, being clearer and sharper, in the 1948 film. Most of the acting is wonderful, but both Desmond and John's parts were written and acted rather dully, meaning that one doesn't feel as sorry for Desmond or grow to loathe John in his treatment of Catherine as one would like.On the other hand, 'The Winslow Boy' is very well made, with gleamingly beautiful cinematography by Benoît Delhomme and the costumes and interiors are sumptuous and rich and evocative in detail. Alaric Jans' music score is used only when it needs to be and is sweeping and understated and never intrusive.Mamet's adapting of Rattigan's writing is remarkably well done as said above, while the characters are complex and alive to nuances in a way that would make Merchant and Ivory proud. The character dynamic is spot on too, especially in the classic interrogation scene between Morton and Ronnie (the most powerful scene in the play, the same applies here) and the witty exchanges between Morton and Catherine, particularly the climactic ones. The story is deliberately but tightly paced, and the slight structure doesn't feel so when the writing and characterisation is so riveting and that story-wise and how we are told a lot that it actually feels like a lot happens.Regarding the question as to whether the film and Rattigan's style would appeal to a modern audience, speaking as a modern viewer myself, I'd say why not if given a chance and knowing what you're in for before watching. Mamet actually does a good job respecting the essence of the source material and also doing enough to try and attract a wider audience, also succeeding in what could easily come over as old-fashioned on-screen fresh and fascinating.Expecting the roles of Desmond and John, the performances are wonderful. Jeremy Northam and Nigel Hawthorne are especially good. There was the worry as to whether Northam would be too young for Morton, but this quickly evaporates when the wit, authority, coolness and cold fish aspects of the character are brought out brilliantly by Northam, shining particularly in the interrogation scene and the climactic moments. Hawthorne is dignified and moving as the patriarch Arthur, one does identify with his want to clear his son and have a lot at stake to prove it.Gemma Jones, always reliable, is cast perfectly, as is appealing Guy Edwards. Rebecca Pidgeon has garnered a mixed reception seemingly here, to me she brought out the charm and outspoken shrewdness of Catherine very well and just about avoids being too much of a snob.In conclusion, not one of the adaptations of Rattigan but still very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox

edumacated this is another directing attempt by David Mamet, and as usual he uses it as a vehicle to employ the mainly unemployable actors in his family.in most of his directorial projects he has produced films so stiff and wooden, and it amazes me that he sometimes finds excellent actors to appear in them. and it must be because as bad a director as he is, he can be just as brilliant a writer.i think Mamet chose, this time, a stiff cultural period which would hide his wooden direction, and his wife's poor acting. and it worked to a degree.the problem is that Mamet has gone to england and short circuited a perfect machine for turning out perfect period pieces. it is what the English film industry does best.his direction has sedated actors, worthy of giving a lively performance, and inspired little more than a walk-through of the lines: sedately matching the abilities of his wife.it all ends up in a mediocre effort. i wish Mamet should stick to writing, but he probably arrogantly believes he is the only director that can do justice to his words. interviews i've seen by the man, back this belief.

jc-osms A drawing room, period, study of manners, domestic drama, if you will... The drama is admittedly light, centring on the impact of a teenage son's expulsion from naval college and the truth or otherwise of this occurrence. Strangely enough, you never get to learn whether the boy was actually guilty or not of his "crime" - although he gets off, it's never fully resolved and could be attributed to the superior advocacy of his attorney - sadly still a predilection in modern society. However the dramatic content could have been increased with some kind of courtroom climax, or confession, but now I'm arguing with the original play, hardly the fault of David Mamet or his actors. The Edwardian, pre War "golden - era" is nicely evoked with the big house, coterie of servants and upper - class manners of the family, although contemporary influences such as suffragetism (strongly) and the approaching war (mildly) are referred to. I'm not sure Mamet properly and fully brought home the "sensational" aspect of the Winslow case on the British public, even as I appreciated his subtlety in demonstrating this via newspaper hoardings, contemporary cartoons and the like. He does however marshall his acting troupe well. Nigel Hawthorne shines as the patriarch who sacrifices the wants and needs of his wider family for the sake of clearing his son's name. I didn't get the impression that it was the family name he was defending and genuinely believe it was for his youngest son's future which concerned him, which is as it should be. I'm not quite sure however that Hawthorne seems just too old to have fathered the boy. The rest of the cast play very well although some of their roles seem stereotypical and perhaps more could have been made of the interfamily tensions...but again that takes us back to Rattigan's source material. Mamet this time, quite rightly eschews all opportunity to contemporise the play and his cinematic devices are subtly reined in, no overlapping dialogue or sharp cross-cutting here. I liked the utilisation of the swinging garden gate at the start of the film, letting in the "bad" from outside, which recalled to mind J.B. Priestley's "An Inspector Calls". How often English dramatists seemed to write about the so called idyllic society of the upper classes breaking down...nothing lasts forever it seems. Anyway, in summary, a wordy piece, well shot, well played but ultimately probably best enjoyed as a stage play.

Amy Adler During the Edwardian period in England, a family is newly in turmoil. The youngest and very dear son has been accused of theft at his school and expelled. The boy swears his innocence to his father & family so the patriarch begins a court proceeding to clear his son of any wrong doing. A rising young attorney (Jeremy Northam) is found willing to accept the defense of the boy. The publicity is intense, making the older sister's wedding engagement in jeopardy. Will the family continue to try and prove their son's case or will circumstances make them give up the fight?This is a beautiful movie, in many ways. The cast is stellar, but, especially, the handsome and intelligent Jeremy Northam excels in his role as the attorney. The sister's role is also portrayed very well and her feisty yet genteel character is extremely attractive. The sets are lovely, the minor characters deft, and the costumes are superb. Mostly, though, the script and direction are of the highest caliber, showcasing what is good and noble in a family with exceptionally high morals. Do you want good character building films without any objectionable scenes, which are also highly enjoyable? This one should make the top ten list every time.