Featured Audience Ratings

• Chris W

  
  This is a film based on a play based on the true life story of Sir Thomas More, a staunch Catholic who was so firm in his convictions, that he became a martyr for refusing to compromise his beliefs by signing an agreement that would recognize King Henry VIII's marriage to Anne… More
  This is a film based on a play based on the true life story of Sir Thomas More, a staunch Catholic who was so firm in his convictions, that he became a martyr for refusing to compromise his beliefs by signing an agreement that would recognize King Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn. It makes sense that this stroy was an adaptation of a play since it is besaically stage and executed like one for basically the entire running time. This is a historical drama (which the Academy loves), so it makes sense also that this won some of the Big Awards, including Best Picture. I do love historicla movies, but this is one of those cases where a film that's feverishly historically accurate doesn't always mean it's going to be an enjoyable one...at least not for those looking for something with mainstream appeal and accessibility. There's basically no action, and it's almost entirely a philosophical discussion/character study about two vastly dfifferent men with extremely clashing views/personalities. I dug it for the most part, but admittedly did find it hard to sit through and kinda boring here and there. Still though, you gotta give a lot of credit to it for the stellar cinematography, art direction, set design, and costumes. The attention to period details and historical accuracy are also to be appluaded, but it probably couldn't have hurt to put in some more action or somehting just to liven things up on occasion. The direction is okay, but Zinnemann has done far better work. The writing is quite sharp and really nails the characters and subject matter, but what really sells the film are the performances. Paul Scofield reprises his role from the play, and rightfully earned an Oscar for his superb work. Robvert Shaw was awesome as Henry VIII, and he's definitely an actor worth checking out if all you know of him is his brilliant work in Jaws. Other notables in the cast invlude Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn, John Hurt as Richasrd RIch, and Orson Welles, whose turn as Cardinal Wolsey is terrific just ofr the sheer fact that it's cool to see him rocking the always photogenic Cardinal robes. This is a hard film to get into, and more for the patient intellectuals than those who like action oriented history based works, but it's got some great themes and materia lworth discussing, so all in all, it's a fine film, but not one I would necessarily say is totally deserving of Best Picture.

• Bathsheba M

  
  I saw this play as a kid--I was raised Catholic, so this was seen as the triumph of a martyr for his faith--and saw just last night again on DVD. It's probably one of those stories (like Anna Karenina) that it's interesting to view at different stages of your life. So, now… More
  I saw this play as a kid--I was raised Catholic, so this was seen as the triumph of a martyr for his faith--and saw just last night again on DVD. It's probably one of those stories (like Anna Karenina) that it's interesting to view at different stages of your life. So, now as a mature woman, I saw the story as that of a man who is steadfast in his refusal to change while the winds of change blow him off his pedestal. I saw loyalty to a corrupt church: but as he says, the Catholic church was the only one with a pedigree from JC. His son-in-law was adamant that he destroy everything corrupt, not realising as I do with the advantage of advanced years hahaha, that man is corrupt and killing a few doesn't change corruption, it just changes the names of the people in charge. The final question is what are you willing to die for, remembering of course that the life span was a lot shorter then. The questions the story of Thomas Moore raises are complex and the answers not easily apparent and I think it might be good for youngins to view it as a way into the complex ideas of life now--nothing is black and white.

• Greg S

  
  With lawerly integrity, Sir Thomas More poltiely defies Henry VIII's increasingly threatening demands that he publically approve of Henry's divorce and break with the Roman Catholic Church. Released in 1966, More's principled, moving and fatal civil disobedience struck… More
  With lawerly integrity, Sir Thomas More poltiely defies Henry VIII's increasingly threatening demands that he publically approve of Henry's divorce and break with the Roman Catholic Church. Released in 1966, More's principled, moving and fatal civil disobedience struck a universal chord and made this intricate character driven historical costume drama a surprise hit.

• Ken S

  
  There is something oddly intreageing about this film. I normally don't enjoy this kind of thing, but I found this very entertaining. Great dialog helps make the 120 minutes fly by.

• xGary X

  
  Classic peiord drama/morality tale that is clearly based on a stage-play; the acting and dialogue are expertly done, but action junkies will find it rather uneventful.

• Matthew Y

  
  A Man for All Seasons is a well constructed film with period era costumes and glorious cinematography but for characters besides Paul Scofield's Thomas More are compelling (or interesting) to watch and the screenplay leaves the whole film to be an unjoyous and even hollow affair.… More
  A Man for All Seasons is a well constructed film with period era costumes and glorious cinematography but for characters besides Paul Scofield's Thomas More are compelling (or interesting) to watch and the screenplay leaves the whole film to be an unjoyous and even hollow affair. While the dialog and pacing does not make the film too hard to understand ones mind can go through long stretches of boredom and fade in and out of the story. The Academy Awards of the 60's liked big lavish affairs and A Man for All Seasons is certainly that, though I don't think the film today holds a candle to the film from the 60's.

• Mike T

  
  The subject matter at the foundation of this film is very interesting, but the execution lacks narrative fire and is, for the most part, dull. The acting all around is impressive, and Zinnemann's direction gives the movie a handsome visual texture, but overall it's a pretty… More
  The subject matter at the foundation of this film is very interesting, but the execution lacks narrative fire and is, for the most part, dull. The acting all around is impressive, and Zinnemann's direction gives the movie a handsome visual texture, but overall it's a pretty underwhelming experience.

• Joey N

  
  SO BORING. I watched it for class....but ended up turning it off anyway. I figured bs-ing an essay was better than finishing this.

• Stephen E

  
  Thanks to its timeless message of standing up against the man when the man is wrong, "A Man for All Seasons" remains a poignant period drama. Paul Scofield acts to minimalist perfection with his portrayal of Thomas More, but the real scene-stealer is Robert Shaw, who shows… More
  Thanks to its timeless message of standing up against the man when the man is wrong, "A Man for All Seasons" remains a poignant period drama. Paul Scofield acts to minimalist perfection with his portrayal of Thomas More, but the real scene-stealer is Robert Shaw, who shows up for literally a single scene and milks every second of it. The film itself is a challenging watch because of its detached nature and laggard pacing, but if you manage to stick it out, you'll find yourself unquestionably satisfied, even if not overly amazed.

• Ivan D

  
  God-given morality and principles clashing with the established order: That's the main theme that runs throughout the film, and even though it's heavy-handed with dialogues(for it being based on a play), I was never bored, nor did my interest faltered. Paul Scofield… More
  God-given morality and principles clashing with the established order: That's the main theme that runs throughout the film, and even though it's heavy-handed with dialogues(for it being based on a play), I was never bored, nor did my interest faltered. Paul Scofield was(insert any superlative praise here) as Thomas More, a man who fought Henry VIII's morally questionable marriage to Anne Boleyn, not by too much of words, but by the mere power of silence, and a constant strength of his convictions. With a film like this, one can even predict halfway through that this would certainly climax in a trial scene(and I was certainly right), with the actor portraying the protagonist uttering some 3-page long oration. But I was quite surprised at how Paul Scofield has done that particular scene. He has portrayed Thomas More as a worn-out individual, and though capable of answering and speaking, chooses not to do much. Instead of a sprawling speech that I have expected, I have witnessed a very brief one, but with a power never much diminished by its shortness. Apart from it being a showcase of some very fine acting, "A Man for all Seasons" has also showed the "not-so-likable" side of 16th century England, perfectly countered with a very moving story of unconditional martyrdom.

• Simeon D

  
  Certifies John Hurt, Orson Welles, Robert Shaw, and Paul Scofield as brilliant actors. The historical screenplay is used as a background to show off the acting and the ostentatious set pieces, cinematography. and costumes. Fantastic film. Should this have won Best Picture: Most… More
  Certifies John Hurt, Orson Welles, Robert Shaw, and Paul Scofield as brilliant actors. The historical screenplay is used as a background to show off the acting and the ostentatious set pieces, cinematography. and costumes. Fantastic film. Should this have won Best Picture: Most historical dramas might deserve to win a few technical awards, but once in a full moon when they have amazing acting; then they completely deserve whatever awards possible. 99/100

• Lord N

  
  This film was really good I thought. it had some great performances by Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Orson Welles, and John Hurt. I don't know about Paul Scofield's Best Actor win but I would need to see the other nominees. It was a very entertaining film about Sir Thomas… More
  This film was really good I thought. it had some great performances by Paul Scofield, Robert Shaw, Orson Welles, and John Hurt. I don't know about Paul Scofield's Best Actor win but I would need to see the other nominees. It was a very entertaining film about Sir Thomas Moore and how he is against the king obtaining a divorce so that he can marry Anne. It was very god with some solid performances all around. The film got better as it progressed. I thought the ending 25 minutes (with Moore's trial and execution) are the best in the entire film. It is interesting to see what happened to everyone after the movie (pretty much everyone dies. Final Verdict: The strong performances and the good plot make the film very good. I'll give it the win until I see something better.

Read all 12 featured audience ratings