Over Rated + Boring

Lol..is the Bard about Shakespeare? You mean I should stay away from it as well. Btw, read most of Shakespeare's plays and liked them.

My morality point for kings, popes & church of the time was that they didn't really have any morality. It wasn't like Henry or other kings were virtuous and his only fault was to divorce his wife to marry a new one. The same Thomas Moore would have happily served him if he slept with 10 new women every day and fathered bastards ( pardon my french but i'm trying to make a point) out of wedlock. So, I found it a trifling matter that the guy and church was quiet on him having relations out of wedlock but when he tried to do something which was Christian i.e. divorce and get another wife they went crazy. It's hypocritical and that's why it's pretentious. Plus, the movie was a total snooze

To each his own certainly. But ... have you considered because the dialogue is "challenging" and that "this movie probably takes more than one viewing", that therein lies the reason you "did not like this movie very much".

Try viewing it with closed captioning. Reading the dialogue while hearing it spoken may make it easier to follow.

Well, you make about 8 negative points re AMFAS none of which I can agree with. What makes the world go 'round, I guess. Btw, I especially liked Shaw's characterization of H VIII.

Additionally, have you considered how the "ethicaly-well-endowed Hollywood hero" as sales pitch began in a non-Hollywoodized (if that's a word) theatre, and that there is a building in a non-Catholic university in my town named after More as well as a college with the whole thing named after him, both of which were so named long before Hollywood got its hands on this ethically well-endowed hero?

[deleted]

The play's morality is certainly straightforward but I don't see this as inherently a bad thing. Nothing wrong with a simple story well told. Bolt's more concerned with exploring the issues of principle and integrity than moral ambiguity.

Certainly I disagree vehemently with you re: Bolt's dialogue. This is one of the most compulsively quotable movies/plays I've encountered, full of beautifully crafted speeches. Some of them are certainly verbose but considering the characters and context it's appropriate; More, Cromwell, etc. are learned 16th Century men, not 20th Century bourgeoisie. Personally I prefer it very much to Becket/The Lion in Winter's nakedly anachronistic dialogues.

"Do you know what lies at the bottom of the mainstream? Mediocrity!"

Yeah, undeniably the film suffers from a dramatically weak script which replaces this lack of almost any intriguing narrative happenstance with abundant dialogue; unfortunately, this dialogue has an unpleasent tendency of turning into either pompous speechmaking of ponderous exposition. Add to this the cheap moralizing and generally heavy handed ways in which characters are handled as well as some broad acting largely unconcerned with much of any nuance in the people it portrays (including a ridiculous version of Henry VIII who is not only prone to frequent temper tantrums, but also near-constant horsing around in a manner better suited for a court jester) and what we have, is little more than a piece of superficially pleasent eye candy. And, of course, last but not least, there´s this issue of Thomas More having been turned into an unambigously righteous, ethicaly-well-endowed Hollywood hero to better sell the yarn for the audiences yearning for tearful uplift. It´s a bona-fide Oscar bait - a mediocre, artistically unremarkable piece of safe entertainment. 5/10.

Completely agree.

I played in this onstage. I was Eustache Chapuys, Charles V's ambassador. He was one of the most duplicitous characters in history. And he was written out of the film. And that was one of the reasons why the film is as dead as mutton.

Also, Thomas More was not a nice man, and, as you say, making him into a living saint is not a good idea. There is no substance to his character at all.

franzkabuki, I agree the dialogue (which was poetic) left a lot to be desired, if you weren't the actor rolling the syllables around in your mouth. Historically, the point of view is dated (as is the cinematography, sets and costumes). I'm almost 70 years old and have managed to escape seeing this film until last night. so I've had more than half a lifetime to compare this to BBC productions of the same material. It didn't fare well. Unlike you I found Robert Shaw's Henry interesting, but that was probably due to Scofield's over-rehearsed More stifling. I was particularly surprised at how little background the movie provided to the story, as if, American audiences of the day knew the fact of the matter like the British.

Interesting post, but I must disagree. I think AMFAS has the "scope", as you put it, not the other way around. In terms of these fine pictures' themes, AMFAS addresses universally felt dilemmas "deliberately", to borrow your term (a good thing, I think): Conscience, faith, tyranny, family, loyalty, sacrifice, and courage. Both fine films -- well-written, performed and directed. There's more soul-searching meat to be had in AMFAS, however, IMO.

Btw, Scofield originated and still owns the role of More. Burton was a fine actor but would not have been right - or as right - as Scofield was.

So are your "Robert Bolt" fan or not? :) you are already talking about his number of plays and adaptions.....seems like you are a fan of his work..A lil introspection will be good for you.

I found it to be boring. You may like it and I'm happy for you. It seems you fulfill my above mentioned 4 criteria of ppl who will prob like it. you don't need to get into details. i was asking opinion of other ppl as you may see that in my OP. no need to get personal.

Frankly, I don't find "moral fiber" of Thomas Moore inspiring. The guy was happily serving the king when the king had relationship out of wedlock. His problem with the king came not because of anything unchristian (divorcing and remarrying is Christian) but because of man made church laws. The guy would have happily served Henry if he had fathered bastards. So, yes I found it to be pretentious. I'm watching the movie in modern times so I'll judge his moral fiber as per our current standards. The same way I would judge moral fiber of ppl who opposed ladies in work or power. if a guy opposing women at work is made out to be hero as per the "moral fiber" of medieval time then that's not good enough for me. Similarly, I found Thomas Moore stand to be ridiculous. He was supporting something unchristian: all Christians can divorce and marry. So why can't the king? A 2+ hour movie dragging on and on about this concept really became a torture. But, some ppl will like the movie because they fall in a certain bracket (as explained in my OP). I'm interested in opinion of ppl who don't fall in that category. I started this post to seek opinion of those..if you are not in the category then you can ignore my piece and move on since it wasn't addressed to you or ppl with your biasis (means preference of Robert Bolt work in this context)

And how exactly does one become a "fan" of Robert Bolt? His output wasn't that large, and most of his screenplays were adaptations.

[deleted]